(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Nominals as complements"

NOMIKALS AS COLiPLEraENTS 



By 
DONALD HERBERT ALBURY 



A DISSERTATION PRESENTr^D lO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREivlENTS FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY . 



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
19 7^^' 




>^l»iii»»i . > -iimr. .. 



Copvright 
197^ 
3y 
Donald Herbert Albury 



^ ■ i' TiMii » ■■rrariiTTrfca n 



To 
Gi nny 
and 
Rebecca 



«Oiimifir««i»w 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

I wish to thank first of all my chairman, Jean' 
Casagrande, who has always encouraged me to approach lin- 
guistics in terms of what are the facts of language, and, 
then, what do the facts say about the theory. He has had 
the faith to let me try unorthodox approaches until I could 
either justify them or give them up. He has, above all, 
helped me "keep the faith" with my ovrn proposals when my 
enthusiasm flagged. 

I also wish to thank Peter Menzel, who has pointed out 
many errors and inconsistencies in my arguments. Of course, 
all remaining errors remain my responsibility. 

My v/ife Ginny and daughter Rebecca have had to put up 
with me for the last year v/hile I worked on this disserta-. 
tion. I am grateful for their patience and support, 

I also wish to acknowledge financial support from the 
University of Florida, in the form of a scholarship and a 
research assistantship, during the writing of this disser- 
tation. 



^\-^&li*^ri-J ^ ' a i. % i»»i > ^ «^ ^">f^,&af'"< 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

ACKNOvVLSDGMENTS iv 

ABSTRACT vii 

CHAPTER 

I INTRODUCTION 1 

Statement of Purpose , . , . . 1 

The Lexical Hypothesis ............ 3 

Derived Nominals as Complements on Nouns ... 5 

Some Assumptions - • 9 

Outline 11 

NOTES 13 

II DEFINING DERIVED NOMINAL COLlPLHyiENTS .."..... 15 

First Definitions 15 

The Surface Structure of Derived Nominal 

Complements 1^ 

Action Nominals 25 

Agentive Nominals ■^^ 

Summary • ^^ 

NOTES ' ^5 

III THE PRODUCTIVITY OF DERIVED NOMINAL C0MPLSI4ENTS . ^8 

The Evidence for Lack of Productivity .... /f8 

Chomsky's Subcategorization Account 51 

RAISING Rules ....... 55 

V 



'•m t|fc*t #tV i^i j i in j i^ a »ia 



CHAPTERS ■ • . Page 

rr-iiXTRAPOSITION 60 

Passive Sentences 66 

NP-PRiiP03ING ■ ■ 70 

Dummy Subject Insertion 93 

EQUI-NP -DELETION ...... 97 

■ DATIVE -EvTOVfiWiSNT 102 

Psychological Predicates 103 

Conclusion • 108 

NOTES 110 

IV RULE -ORDERING AND DERIVED NOMINAL COMPLEMENTS . . Il6 

Introduction ............ llo 

Newmeyer's Proposa.1 117 

The Order of the Rules 121 

The Cycle and Complementation 127 

Complementation as a Process 139 

NOTES ■ 1^ 

V CONGLUSICNS 1^3 

BISLIOGRAPHY 1^5 



9 



Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Goujicil 

of the University ■ of Florida 

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



NOMINALS AS COr^LEMENTS 

3y . . . 

Donald Herbert Albury 

March, 19?^ 

Chairmanj Jean Casagrande 
Ka.ior Department: Linguistics 

The syntactic construction I-cnown as the derived nominal 
presents problems to a transf ormatioiial grammar of English. 
Noam Chomsky has claimed that derived nominals have 
restricted productivity, an internal structure Tike that of 
noun phi-ases, and Idiosyncratic semantic relationships to 
tneir associaxed predicates. Chomsky's claim that the Lexi- 
cal rlvDOthesis orovides a better exDlanation of the charac- 
'ceristics of derived nominals than the transformational pos- 
ition is rejected. A predicate-initial analysis of the 
underlying structure of English and an analysis of derived 
nominals as complements of nouns in underlying structure are 
adopted. It is then shov;n that the productivity of derived 
nominals is not as restricted as Chom.sky claims, and that 
the remaining restrictions are due to the failure of cer- 
tain rules to apply in the derivation of derived nominals. 

vii 



viii „ • 
Frederick Nevmeyer ' s proposal that such rules fail to apply 
because BERI'/ED NOMINALIZATION applies befora they do, and 
noninalizes the predicate which is a part of the structural 
description of those rules, is adopted. It is 'then argued 
that the sarae rule-ordering arguments that account for the 
restrictions on productivity of derived nominals will also 
account for the noun phrase- like internal structure of 
derived nominals. It is furtner argued that the predi- 
cate-initial analysis eliminates the need for any rule of 
extraposition in Snglish, that DERIVED KOMII^^ALIZATION is a 
cyclic rule, and that the formation of complements from 
underlying embedded sentences in general is a process of the 
cycle applying to the embedded sentence, and not of some . 
higher application of the cycle. 



CHAPTER ONS 
INTRODUCTION 



Statement of Purpose 



The question of the extent of regularity in language 
has been a recurrent theme in linguistics since ancient ■ 
times, when the Analogists of Alexandria disputed with the 
Anomalists of Pergamon. This question has recently become 
once more prominent in the study of transformational gram- 
mar. In an important sense, a transformation is an abstrac- 
tion of a regularity in language. The question of whether a 
particular structure in a language can be described trans- 
formationally is an empirical one, and is equivalent to the 
Question of whether that structure in that language exhibits 
a regular correspondence to another structure of that lan- 
guage. An assumption of transformational grammar has been 
that lang^aage is basically regular, and, as a consequence, 
transformational grammars have emphasized the regularity of 
a language. 

Noam Chomsky (1970) has claimed that the English comple- 
ment construction which he calls the derived nominal consti- 
tutes a part of English grammar which is not regular in the 
sense indicated above, and which cannot be described trans- 
formationally. He supports his claim by contrasting derived 
noninals to gerundive nominals, another type of complement 

1 



.s^wifluijii* i. iiiaiii^imi'—Miiari-fciT-f trmi-r'tmt'^ipt^i-^^- ■*>< ' * f^ ' * » 



2 

which he considers to be derived by transformations from 

underlying embedded sentences. This is an empirical claim, 

and may be tested by examining the sentences of English 

which contain these two types of complements. The forms of 

these complements, and their relation to each other and to 

sentences, is illustrated in 1.1, 1.2 and 1.35 the main 

clauses in 1.1 having the corresponding gerundive nominals 

in 1.2 and derived nominals in 1.3- 

1.1a) John is usually calm under stress, which pleases 
Mary . 
b) John completed the assignment early, which 
pleased Mar?/- . 

1.2a) John's usually being calm under stress pleases 

Mary . 
b) John's completing the assig;nment early pleased 
Mary . 

1.3a) John's usual calmness under stress pleases Mary . 
b) John's early completion of the assignment 
pleased Mary . 

The underlined words are intended to supply appropriate 
contexts for the nominal complements as well as showing how 
sentences and nominal complements can be alternate realiza- 
tions of a common underlying structure. Gerundive nominal 
complements often resemble sentences with progressive aspect. 
While this may be confusing at times, the intended reading 
of such forms as gerundive nominal complements may be made 
clear by putting them into a context such as . . . is surpris - 
ing .- or Ann is worried about . ... 

Chomsky's argument that derived nominal com.plements are 
not regular, and cannot be derived from underlying embedded 
sentences, as are gerundive nominal complements, is based on 



^smmniif^'**-'' 



three characteristic properties; A, that productivity is 
more restricted for derived nominal coruplements than for 
gerundive nominal complsments, B, that semantic relations 
bety;een derived nominals and their associated propositions 
are varied and idiosyncratic, and C, that derived nominal 
complements have the internal structure of noun phrases. 
Having concluded that derived nominal complements cannot be 
derived transformationally, Chomsky claims that the phrase 
structure rules of English must be complicated to provide 
the structure of derived nominal complements directly and 
that derived nominals are lexical entries. This is the 
Lexical Hypothesis, and amounts to a claim that derived 
nominal complements shov/ less regularity than other struc- 
tures in English, and the limits of regularity have been 
found for this part of the grammar- of English. If Chomsky 
is wTong about the implications of the properties of derived 
nominal complements » then his argument for the need for the 
Lexical Hypothesis is weakened. I propose to shov; that 
Chomsky's three properties do not establish the irregularity 
of the formation of derived nominal complements, that their 
formation is as regular as other transformational processes, 
and that a transformational account of derived nominal 
complements is at least as well motivated as the Lexical 
Hypothesis. 

The Lexical Hypothesis 
Chomsky (1970:188) states the lexicalist position as 
the choice of extending the base rules, with concomitant 



Mi firfsi.^i^w^'yi ^wr^ 



■ if ■ . 

simplification of the transformational component. By con- 
trast, he gives the transformationalist position as the 
choice of simplifying the base structure and extending the 
transformational apparatus. Chomsicy states that the choice 
between the tv/o positions is entirely an empirical one. 
Chomsky's 1970 study is a presentation of. arguments for the 
validity of the lexicalist position. I will consider those 
arguments at appropriate points below, but for now I will 
give a summary of the Lexical Hypothesis as presented by 
Chomsky. 

The theory within which Chomsky is making his claims 
about derived nominals pictures syntax as being strictly . 
divided betv/een a base component and a transformational 
component (the "Aspects" models cf. Katz and Postal, 1964, 
and Chomsky, I965) . The point of connection between the 
two components; when all the base (phrase- structure) rules 
have applied, but before any transformational rules have 
applied, is called deep structure . A third component is 
the lexicon, which supplies lexical items' to be inserted 
in, and only in, deep structure. 

The Lexical Hypothesis involves the claim that derived 
nominal complements are produced directly by a subset of the 
base rules, that derived nominals are supplied directly from 
the lexicon in deep structure, and that derived nominal com- 
plements are not subject to most transformational rules. 
Chomsky (1970s 195) notes that such a claim implies that 
phrase structure rules must introduce an extensive range of 



5 

derived nominal complement structures parallel to the struc- 
tures of embedded sentences. Indeed, there seem to be few, 
if any, sentential deep structures in Chomsky's system which 
do not have corresponding derived nominal complements. 

According to Chomsky (1970S190), in early transforma- 
tional theory, "there was no other way to express the fact 
that the contexts in which refuse appears as a verb and 
refusal as a noun are closely related" than in terms of 
transformational rules, Chomsky further states that v/hen 
contextual features were introduced into the theory (in 
Chomsky, 1965) , it became possible to separate the lexicon 
from the categorical component of the base, and thus to 
adopt the Lexical Hypothesis. According to Chomsky (19?0{ 
190) , refuse is entered in the lexicon with certain features 
specified, but with no specification of the categorical fea- 
tures l^nounl and [verbj. He adds that fairly idiosyncratic 
morphological rules v/ould be involved in deriving forms like 
refusal in derived nominal complements. 

Derived Nominals as Complements on Nouns 

The term complement has been used in ways different 
enough to make it worth while indicating here what I mean by 
gerundive nominal complement and derived nominal complement . 
On the one hand, anything that completes a structure can be 
regarded as a complement. Thus, the underlined parts of the 
examples in 1.4 are all complements of the verbs in their 
respective sentences. 



t-Jm»M*r l*ii^^^.I,J.■^r•ri ^ .■■II ^l-. - w^W'tt"*— »'RHWftf-*jy*f>'*'Hi».' ^. 'WTT >P ' '^ - "* 



1.4-a) John arrived yesterday . 

b) I v/ant t o leave nov; . 

c) Mike totaled hi s ca r. 

On the other hand, complement has been used to refer to 
nominalized (or otherwise reduced) embedded sentences such 
as those cited in 1.2 and 1.3- By nominal complement I will 
refer to noniinalized ereibedded sentences which are comple- 
ments of nouns in noun phrases. 

Peter Rosenbaum (1967) argued that the type of comple- 
ment structure he called Noun Phrase Complementation is a 
noun phrase in deep structure, consisting of the pronoun ijt 
as the head noun, and an embedded sentence as a complement 
of it. Rosenbaum contrasted Noun Phrase Complementation 
with Verb Phrase Complementation, in which an embedded sen- 
tence is a complement of a verb in deep structure. 

Rosenbaum 's claim that the pronoun j/t is present in 
noun phrase complements in deep structure now appears to be 
wrong. I will present arguments against that claim in the 
section on IT -EXTRAPOSITION in Chapter Three. 

Peter Menzel (I969) has argued that gerundive nominal 
complements (and, less explicitly, derived nominal comple- 
ments) a.re complements of one of a certain set of dele table 
head nouns in underlying structure. He points out (pp. 17 ~ 
Si) that verbs which take gerundive nominal complements, 
with a. few exceptions such as verbs of belief and say , 
declare and claim, also allow the construction Noun -i- Com- 
plement,, or just the noun as object. The nouns which can 
appear in such constructions (i.e., fact , -pro-position . event, 



..±\\ III ■nil I ii m ii n ii T wi iii ii ti 'i ri ll HI ' ' " i ' |ii — '1~t^ 



. 7 ■ 
action, etc.) may also be taken as names of the types of 
complements a verb allows. Thuss John's coming can be both 
a fact and an event, and v/e get the sets of possible sen- 
tences in 1.5 and 1.6. 

. 1.5a) John's coming occurred at ten o'clock. 

b) The event of John's coming occurred at ten • 

o'clock. 

c) The event occurred at ten o'clock. 

1.6a) John's coming is surprising. 

b) The fact of John's coming is surprising. 

c) The fact is surprising. 

The noun action can only take subject less gerundive 

nominal complements, while other nouns, such as event , 

require a gerundive nominal complement with a subject 

(Menzel, 1969:82-83). At the same timSf of the nouns which 

take gerundive nominal complements, only action allov;s a 

preposed possessive noun. Thus, v/e find the pattern of 

acceptability shown in 1,?. 

1.7a) a.. +. „ r*John's eating the meat"! 
one action of { ^^^. ^^ ^^^ ^^|^ j 

b) 4.. ^ X- r John's eating the meatl 

tne event of-^jj... ju„^ f 

L *eating the meat -) 

^^ -ohn's{llll'^^\of eating the meat 

Most of the nouns on Menzel's list also take derived 
nominal complem.ents, and any derived nominal complement, 
unless it is a complement of a verb of beliefs or of say, 
declare , or claim , can be a complement of at least one of 
those head nouns, as is indicated by the examples in 1,8, 

1.8a) The fact of John's departure cannot be contested. 

b) The event of the destruction of Jerusalem 

occurred in 67 AD. 

c) The state of Mike's awareness is unpredictable. 



8 . 

The head noun action never takes a derived nominal com- 
plement, no matter where the possessive agent is placed, or 
even if it is deleted. The examples in 1.9 are all unaccep- 
table, even though the parallel forms in 1.10 are perfectly 
acceptable. 

1.9a) *The action of Humphrey's refusal of the offer 
caused trouble. 

b) ^Humphrey's action of refusal of the offer caused 

' trouble. 

c) *The action of refusal of the offer caused 

trouble. 

1.10a) The fact of Humphrey's refusal of the offer 
caused trouble. 

b) Humphrey's action of refusing the offer caused 

trouble. 

c) The action of refusing the offer caused trouble. 

Menzel (1969s 51) notes that gerundive nominal comple- 
ments can also be complements of act . He states that acts 
are a subclass of actions, with the restriction that "an act 
is an action v/hich the speaker either (a) disapproves of 
strongly (in a legal or moral sense)} or ( b) admires greatly." 
He also notes that this distinction does not seem to be 
recognised by some speakers. j 

While derived nominal complements do not occur as com- [ 

plements of action s a restricted class does occur as comple- I 

I 
ments of act . The head noun act does not take derived nomi- 
nal complements with object prepositional phrases. The 
examples in 1.11 illustrate the differences between gerund- 
ive nominal com.plements and derived nominal complements in 



musaeHbOM 



regard to the head nouns action and act . The adjective 
cov/ardly is more appropriate for the complements of act . 
1.11 (in the context . ., was unex-pected/cowardly . ) 

a) John's denying the request 

b) John's action of denying the request ' 

c) John's act of denying the request 

d) John's denial of the request 

e) ^John's action of denial of the request 

f) ^John's act of denial of the request 

g) John's act of denial 

Gerundive nominal complements and derived nominal com- 
plements are alike in that they both can be complem.ents of 
a limited set of head nouns in surface structure, and seem 
to always be complem.ents of such nouns in underlying struc- 
ture. The two types of complement differ in that only ger- 
undive nominal com.plements can be complements of action. 

Some Assumption s 

In this study I will be making certain assumptions 
bearing on the structures and rules I will discuss. First 
of ail, I will assume that gram.matical rules apply in a 
fix3d order and cyclically. The cyclic application of rules 
means that the full set of rules would first apply in order 
to the deepest embedded sentence, S^f in 1.12. 

1.12 




After all the rules have had .a chance to apply to 3,^, 
the rules would, apply in the same order to the next higher 
sentence E S-, , which is in turn embedded in S^. After all 
the rules have had a chance to apply to S-,, the rules would 
apply again in the same order to the highest sentence, S^. 

I will also adopt here a predicate-initial analysis of 
the underlying structure of English seatences. McCawley 
(19?0) presents arguments for such an analysis for struc- 
tural representations comparable to those in Chomsky (1965). 
A predicate-initial analysis is also at least implicit in 
the case grammar of Fillm.ore (I968), The underlying struc- 
tures in case grammar differ greatly from the underlying 
structures postulated in Chomsky (I965). In Fillmore's case 
grammars the noun phrases in deeply underlying structures 
are identified by their semantic relationship to the predi- 
cate of the sentences and not by any syntactic relationship. 
'Without adopting case grammar in tot o, I v/ill assume that, 
before any s:,/ntactlc rules have applied, there is no ordered 
relationship between the constituents of the underlying pro- 
positions, and that at least some syntactic rules must recog- 
nize semantic relationships and transform such semantic rela- 
tionships into word-order syntactic relationships. For con- 



-tiilvjc o. 



representation, hov/ever, I v/ill assum.e that 



underlying sentences have structures like that in 1.13 
before any syntactic rule has applied.-' 

PRED 




■^. m ^JaiHil* ti^^<l3i— 1« " I f* * 



11 

Assurairig predicate-initial order in structures such as 
1.13 is a v/ay of expressing the pivotal role of the predi- 
cate in most syntactic rules. An alternative statement 
could be that noun phrases are assigned linear order in rela- 
tion to the predicate by syntactic rules. 

McCawley (1970) explicitly assumes that underlying sen- 
tences have the order Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) before the 
application of any transformations, but does not present an;^ 
evidence for preferring that order over one of Verb-Object 
-Subject (VOS). I believe that the evidence points to a VOS 
order, if there is any order at all to the noun phrases to 
the right of the predicate in deeply underlying structures. 
In the rest of this work, the relative order of noun phrases 
in trees representing deeply underlying structures will be 
arbitrary, and represent no claims as to the actual order,. 

Outline 

This study is concerned primarily with the internal 
structure of nominal complements, by v;hich I mean the rela- 
tionships of the constituents of nominal complements to each 
other, as opposed to the relationships of nominal comple- 
ments to items which are not constituents of the said nomi- 
nal complements, I compare such internal structures to 
those of sentences and of other clausal complements, I 
point out that the differences between such structures are 
regular, and easily accounted for by independently motivated 
syntactic rules, given certain conditions on the cycle in 
which the rules aoTJly. ' ■ 



F««art<F?4r««tS«i 



12 

I do not discuss the problem of the apparent irregular- 
ities in the semantic relationship between related predi- 
cates and derived nominals. I will adopt Newmeyer's (1971) 
claim that, at the worst, the transformationalist position 
is no less adquate on this point than the Lexical Hypothe- 
sis, since, if there are no regularities, the information 
on restrictions on meanings of derived nominals must be 
part of the lexical entryj of the underlying predicate with 
the transformationalist position, of the underlying predi- 
cate/nominal with the Lexical Hypothesis. 

Chapter Two is a discussion of the surface structure of 
derived nominal complements, and arguments for including in 
the class of derived nominal complements certain structures 
which have not previously been so identified. Chapter Three 
discusses the rules which do not apply in the derivation of 
derived nominal complements j or v/hich have different condi- 
tions on applicability in derived nom.inal com.plements, but 
v/hich apply without restriction to sentences and gerundive 
nominal complements. Chapter Four discusses the ordering of 
rules which will account for the structure of derived nominal 
complements, and the question of which cycle the appropriate 
rules apply on. Chapter Five summ.arizes the thesis, and 
presents certain questions of theoretical Import. 



li^i Ih _LdtS I \>-i£^ 



NOTES 



A source of possible confusion is the fact that both 
the nouns formed by adding a suffix to a verb stem, and the 
complements in vmich such nouns occur, can be called nomi - 
nals. To avoid confusion, I will reserve the term nominal 
for the nouns so formed, and refer to the complements they 
occur in as nominal comp lements. I will use nominalization 
to refer to the process by which nominals are created. I 
will have more to say about the choice of the term comple - 
ment below. 

2 

The possessive agent on action is always identical 

with the deleted agent of the com.plement of action . Menzel 
argues that the agent cannot have been raised from the com- 
plement. Among suggestions of possible sources for the 
possessive agent, he states that "in a grammar based on 
the transformationalist position. .. the agent on the head ■ 
noun action would be derived from an underlying sentence 
embedded on the noun action, or more probably on the verb 
act." Ross (1972a) argues that sentences with verbs of act- 
ion (v/hich are the only sentences that can be embedded as 
complements of the head noun action ) are embedded on the 
verb do in underlying structures ^ with the agent of do iden- 
tical to the agent of the embedded sentence. The substitu- 

13 



1^ 

tion of action for do in nominal complements, and the dele- 
tion of the lower of tv/o identical agents (cf. 2QUI-NP-DELE- 
TION in Chapter Three), will account for the above facts 
within the transformationalist position. 

There are extensive arguments in the literature for 
cyclical ordering. I am not concerned here with the argu- 
ments over extrinsic vs. intrinsic ordering, but v;ill merely 
state that assuming ordering permits useful generalizations, 
as in Chapter Four and Chapter Five. 

At this point I am rejecting the Aspects model of 
grammar. The Aspects model has syntax as the most basic 
component of the grammar, with both semantics and phonology 
acting as interpretive components of the output of the syn- 
tactic component. I believe that this model is unrealistic, 
even as a model of competence rather than of performance. 
Speech is a stream of sound perceived as a linear string of 
distinct units. Semantic propositions, on the other hand, 
are unordered in any dimensional sense. There is no dimen- 
sional order implied in the statement that someone is the 
agent of such-and-such action. Syntax, then, is that part 
of graminar which relates unordered semantic relationships 
to linearly ordered phonological strings. 

James McCawley, during a discussion at the I972 LSA 
Annual Meeting, sum.med up the predicate-initial hypothesis 
in the statement that if there is any linear order so early 
in the grammar, it is a predicate-initial order. 

I v/ill present my arguments for this analysis in 
Albury (forthcoming). 



CHAPTER TWO 
DEFINING DERIVED NOMINAL GOiyiPLEMENTS 



First Definition; 



Chomsky (1970) does not explicitly define derived nomi- 
nal complements, but a definition may be extracted from the 
various examples he cites in discussing the characteristics 
of derived nominals. It is obvious throughout that Chomsky 
intends the class of derived nominals to include only those 
nominals which are morphologically derived from a verb by 
means other than the suffix -ing . ~ He explicitly excludes 
gerunds (those nominals derived by adding -i.ng to a verb) 
from- the set of derived nom.inals. Chom.sky (19703 21^0 notes 
certain similarities to derived nominal complements shown by 
structures called "action nominals" in Lees (I963) and 
Fraser (I97O), which have nominals form.ed with -ing, but he 
claims a number of differences which would seem to preclude 
treating them as derived nominal complements. I y;ill have 
m.ore to say about these forms belov/, Chomsky thus limits 
the term derived nomina l to those nominals formed by adding 
a derivational suffix to a verb, such as refusal (from 
refu se) and marria ge (from marry) ; nom.inals identical 
(except for stress) to verbs, such as search (from search) and 
e xport (from export ) ; and nominals phonologically modified 
from a verb, such as deed (from did ) . 

15 



i-M^ fai»*-iB^«»^t»il^tll1»ii 



16" 

I will temporarily accept Chomsky's implied morphologi- 
cal definition of derived nominals, and define derived noiTii- 
nal complements as those complements in which nominals 
formed without an -ing suffix are found. Starting from this 
definition of derived nominal complements , I would like to 
build up a detailed description of the structure of these 
compleraents. Chomsky's method of comparing sentences, ger- 
undive nominal complements and derived nominal complements 
to illustrate the characteristics of derived nominal comple- 
ments is useful s and I v^ill adopt it here. 

The Surface Structure . of Derived Nominal Complements 

Chomsky (1970s 187-88) cites the sentences in 2.1 as 
having the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 
2,2 ?.nd the corresponding derived nominal complem.ents in 2.3. 
The gerundive nominal complem.ents have gerundive nom.inals 
corresponding to the verbs in the sentences, v/hile the 
derived nominal complem.ents have derived nominals corres- 
ponding to the verbs in the sentences, 

2.1a) John is eager to please, 

b) John refused the offer, 

c) John criticized the book. 

2,2a) John's being eager to please 

b) John's refusing the offer 

c) John's criticizing the book 

2.3a) John's eagerness to please 
I b) John's refusal of the offer 

c) John's criticism of the book 

1 

Determ.iners 

One characteristic shared by gerundive nom.inal comple- 

\ ments and derived nominal complements is the presence of 



" j:ir"ii|i " i"i V ■■ «i l a r ii lilt w n I jl i T in un f T ~T <t •ii.lTTU'wITiiWMrrT' 



possessive nouns corresponding to the subject nouns in the 
sentences. Choinsky points out that the two types of nominal 
complement differ in that the possessive nouns in derived 
nominal complements can be replaced by other determiners, as 
is shown by the derived nominal complements in 2.^ (cf. 2.3). 
while the possessive nouns in gerundive nominal complements 
cannot be so replaced, as is indicated by the fact that forms 
like those in 2.5 (cf. 2.2) do not occur. The derived nomi- 
nal complements in 2.4 appear to be parallel to the derived 
nominal complements in 2.3? but the derived nominal comple- 
ments in 2.6 are closer in meaning to those in 2.3 than the 

2 
ones in 2.4- are. 

2.4a) ?the eagerness to please 

b) the refusal of the offer 

c) the criticism of the book 

2.5a) *the being eager to please 

b) *the refusing the offer 

c) *the criticizing the book 



2.6a) ?the eagerness to please by John 

b) the refusal of the offer by John 

c) the criticism of the book by John 

Ad.i ective-Adverb Correspondences 

A second difference between gerundive nominal comple- 
ments and derived nominal complements which Chomsky discus- 
ses is the fact that derived nominal complements can have an 
adjective preceding the nominal, while gerundive nominal com- 
plements cannot. These prenominal adjectives correspond to 
adverbs in sentences and gerundive nominal complem^ents, so 
that there are sentences like those in 2.7s with the corres- 
ponding gerundive nominal complem.ents in 2. 8, and the corres- 



■ . ■ ■ 18 

ponding derived nominal complements in 2.9« The fact that 
strings like those in 2.10 are unacceptable shov;s that ger- 
undive nominal complements do not take prenominal adjectives. 

2.7a) John is overwhelmingly eager to please. 

b) John abruptly refused the offer. 

c) John criticized the book unmercifully. 

2.8a) John's being overwhelmingly eager to please 

b) John's abruptly refusing the offer 

c) John's criticizing the book unmercifully 

2.9a) John's overv/helming eagerness to please 

b) John's abrupt refusal of the offer 

c) John's unmerciful criticism of the book 

2.10a) "John's being overwhelming eager to please 

b) "^John's abrupt refusing the offer 

c) *John's unmerciful criticizing the book 

The prenominal adjectives in some derived nominal com- 
plements, such as those in 2.11, do not have corresponding 
adverbs in gerundive nominal com.plements, as in 2.12, or 
sentences, as in 2.13. 

2.11a) John's troublesome eagerness to please 

b) John's untimely refusal of the offer 

c) John's unmotivated criticism of the book 

2.12a) "'John's being troublesomely eager to please 

b) *Joiin's untimely refusing the offer 

c) ^John's criticizing the book unmotivatedly 

2.13a) *John is troublesomely eager to please. 

b) "John untimely refused the offer. 

c) *John criticized the book unmotivatedly. 

That the acceptability of the forms in 2.11, and the 
unacceptability of the forms in 2.12 and 2.13 is due to 
these a.dverbs alone can be seen by inspecting the forms in 
2.1, 2.2s 2.7 and 2.8. The adjectives which appear in pre- 
nominal position in the derived nominal complements in 2.11 
can also be predicated of such complements, as in 2.1^. 



.;--^--^,i- ...xi^-— f-^ 



2.1^-a) John's eagerness to please is troublesome. 

b) John's refusal of the offer was untimely. 

c) John's criticism of the book was unmotivated. 

■The prenoroinal adjectives in the derived nominal com- 
plements in 2,9 can also be predicated of those com.plements, 
as in 2.15. 

2.15a) John's eagerness to please is overwhelming. 

b) John's refusal of the offer was abrupt. 
. . c) John's criticism of the book was unmerciful. 

The parallel I have been drav/ing betv/een the adverbs in 
sentences and gerundive nomdnal complem.ents and the adjec- 
tives in derived nom.inal complem.ents suggests that the ad- 
verbs and adjectives are derivationally related. The fact 
that the adverbs are morphologically derived from the adjec- 
tives by adding the suffix - ly reinforces that hypothesis. 

The three-way correspondence between prenominal adjec- 
tives in derived nominal comiplementSj adjectives predicated 
of derived nominal complements, and adverbs in sentences and 
gerundive nom.inal complements suggests that the adjectives 
and adverbs have as a common source a higher predicate. If 
the higher predicate is the highest m.atrix predicate (ignor- 
ing abstract higher predicates) then it m.ay be expressed as 
an adverb of the embedded sentence (raised to surface sen- 
tencehood) or as a predicate on a derived nominal complement, 
If the higher predicate is in turn embedded under a predi- 
cate which v/ill ajopear in surface structure, then it may be 
expressed as an adverb with a gerundive nominal comiplement, 
or as a prenominal adjective v/ith a derived nominal com.ple- 
ment. The higher predicate-prenominal adjective relation- 



2§ , 

ship is also seen in siaiple noun phrases, so that no nev/ 

rule need be postulated to derive prenominal adjectives in 

derived nominal complements from higher predicates. 

Chomsky (1970 j 195) points out that a claim that the 

prenominal adjectives in derived nominal complements are 

derivationally related to adverbs leads to the prediction 

that sentences like those in 2.l6 will have corresponding 

derived nominal complements like the structures in 2.1?, 

which are not acceptable. 

2.l6a) John refused the offer in a surprising manner, 
b) John is sincere to a limited extent. 

2.17a) ^'John's refusal of the offer in a surprising manner 
b) ^John's sincerity to a limited extent 

However, there are structures like those in 2.18 which 
include derived nominal complem.ents, and which seem to cor- 
respond to the sentences in 2.16. 

2.18a) the surprising manner of John's refusal of 
the offer 
b) the limited extent of John's sincerity 

Adverbs which are morphologically derived from adjec- 
tives seem to be included within the scope of structures 
which have corresponding derived nominal complements, v^hile 
adverbs which are prepositional phrases seem not to be 
included within the scope of such structures. It is not 
necessary to claim that the prenominal adjectives are . ■ ■ 
derived from adverbs to support the claim that the prenomi- 
nal adjectives and adverbs are derived from the same under- 
lying structures. The restrictions on the inclusion of ad- 
verbial prepositional phrases vdthin the scope of derived 
nominal com.Dlements does not invalidate such a claim. 



21 :::■ 

Object: Prepositions 

Another characteristic which . distinguishes derived nom- 
inal compleoients from sentences and gerundive nominal com- ■ 
plements is the presence of a preposition preceding the noun 
phrases in derived nominal complements which correspond to 
the objects of verbs in sentences, if such object noun 
phrases do not already have a preposition. Among the sen- 
tences in 2.19, corresponding gerundive nominal com^plements 
in 2 . 20 and corresponding derived nom.inal complements in 

2.21, only the derived nominal complements have the prepos- 

3 
ition of preceding the object. 

2.19a) John refused the offer. 

b) John criticized the book. 

c) John robbed the bank. 

2.20a) John's refusing the offer 
"b) John's criticizing the book 
c) John's robbing the bank 

2.21a) John's refusal of the offer 

b) John's criticism of the book 

c) John's robbery of the bank 

When object noun phrases are preceded by prepositions 
in sentences such as those in 2.22 and in the corresponding 
gerundive nominal complements in 2.23» then the same pre- 
positions also appear in the corresponding derived nominal 
complements, as in 2.2^. 

2.22a) John was amused at the children's antics. 

b) John delighted in teasing Alice. 

c) John was doubtful about Dick's honesty. 

2.23a) John's being amused at the children's antics 

b) John's delighting in teasing Alice 

c) John's being doubtful about Dick's honesty 

2.24a) John's amusement at the children's antics 

b) John's delight in teasing Alice 

c) John's doubts about Dick's honesty 



-TT-mr-' T ^f '-j'rT -if—i — -^ ■'^—■*—^—^~— -»«*—" sr't wwrj- ^Min'ii—r^i-i.ru ■-■Ji' m— Kia— Oflffi iiiiUic w^jwtw^i^MWMWi':! ■nx "]M»TM^«jtiiwiff*^iw<''r"M 



22 



Pluraliaation 



Another characteristic of derived nciiinals discussed by 
Chomsky (I97O1I89) is that they may "be pluralized^ while 
gerundive nominal complements may not. Thus, we find the 
derived nominal complements in 2.25» which correspond to the 
sentences in 2.26, while the corresponding gerundive nominal 
complements in 2.2? are not pluralized. 

2.25a) John's three proofs of the theorem 

b) John's repeated attempts to scale the wall 

c) Agnev/'s many attacks on the press 

2.26a) John proved the theorem three (times, ways, etc.). 

b) John repeatedly attem.pted to scale the wall. 

c) A.gnev; attacked the press many tim.es. 

2.27a) John's proving the theorem three (times, ways, etc.) 

b) John's repeatedly attempting to scale the wall 

c) Agnew's attacking the press many times 

The sentences in 2.26 and the gerundive nominal comple- 
ments in 2.27 express repetitive events. The derived nomi- 
nal complem.ents in 2.25 also express repetitive events, but 
v/ith plural nominals rather than adverbs of repetition. 
Repetition is not alv;ays expressed explicitly in sentences 
such as those in 2.28, which therefore have two sets of cor- 
responding derived nominal complements, those in 2.29, which 
express explicitly the singularity of the event* and those 
in 2.30, which express explicitly the repetition of the 
evenx, 

2.28a) John has proved the theorem. 

b) John has attempted to scale the wall. 

c) A.-gnew has attacked the press. . . 

2.29a) John's proof of the theorem 

b) John's attempt to scale the wall 

c) Agnew's attack on the press 



g.fc w » fm »Jmt^'i mn t ' i Kiw mi-lmm ^ ,^%i>iftt^ t ^9'*^m'\'VUM'-it^t* 



23 ■ , 

2,303-) John's proofs of the thsorem 

b) John's attempts to scale the wall 

c) Agnev/'s attacks on the press 

Not all derived nominals can be pluralized. The sen- 
tences in 2,31 ha\?-e the corresponding derived norainal comple- 
ments with singular derived nominals in 2.32, but derived 
nominal complem.ents v/ith plural derived nominals like those 
in 2.33 corresponding to the sentences in 2.31 do not occur. 

2,31a) The enemy has destroyed the city on three 
occassions, 
b) The crowd laughed repeatedly. 

2.32a) the enemy's destruction of the city on three 
occassions 
b) the crowd's repeated laughter 

2,33a) *the enemy's destructions of the city on three 
occassions 
b) ""the crowd's repeated laughters 

Auxiliajie_s 

Another characteristic of the structure of derived nom- 
inal com.plements discussed by Chomsky (19?0:189) is the 
absence of any auxiliary verbs. Gerundive nom.inal com.ple- 
ments, on the other hand, can have any auxiliary (with the 
exception exemplified by 2.35c) except m.odals. Perfective 
aspect can appear in gerundive nominal com.plemientss so that 
sentences like those in 2,3^a and b have the corresponding 
gerundive nominal complements in 2.35a and b. Progressive 
aspect can also appear in gerundive nom.inal com^plements, but 
only in conjunction with perfective aspect » as in 2,35t), so 
that the sentence in 2.3'4-c does not have a corresponding 
gerundive nom.inal comiplemient with be ing corresponding to a 
form of _be which is acceptable (cf. 2,35c and d),-^ 



zk 



2.3^a) John has criticized the book. 

b) John had been criticizing the book. 

c) John is criticizing the book. 

2.35a) John's having criticized the book 

b) John's having been criticizing the book 

c) ^John's being criticizing the book 

d) John's criticizing the book 

Forms of the verb be v/hich appear as copulas in sen- 
tences with predicate adjectives or predicate nouns, or in 
combination with past/passive participles in passive sen- 
tences, such as those in 2.36» also appear in gerundive nom- 
inal complements such as those in 2.3?. But the derived ■ 
nominal complements in 2.38 which correspond to the sen- 
tences in 2.36 do not have any form of be . 



2.36a 
b 
c 
d 
e 

2.37a 
b 
c 
d 
e 

2.3Sa 
b, 
c 
d, 
e 



John is strong. 

Alice is beautiful. 

John is the chairman. 

The city was destroyed by the enemy. 

Abby was acquitted by the jury. 

John's being strong 

Alice's being beautiful *- 

John's being the chairman 

the city's being destroyed by the enemy 

Abby's being acquitted by the jury 

John's strength 

Alice's beauty ^ 

J ohn ' s chairmanship 

the city's destruction "by the enemy 

Abby's acquittal by the jury 



A Redefinition 



I would now like to abandon my first provisional defi- 
nition of derived nominal complements as those complements 
with nominals formed without an -ing suffix, and instead 
define derived nominal complements as those complements 
which show one or more of the following features? a wide 



25 
variety of determiners? prenominal adjectives instead of 
adverbs; pluralization of the nominal; prepositions preced- 
ing object noun phrases when thej/ do not appear in the cor- 
responding sentences; and complete absence of auxiliaries, 
including copulas and the passive be. The form of the nom- 
inal in derived nominal complements does not enter into 
this definition. 

Action Nominals 
Chomsky's Analysis 

There are nominal complements which satisfy the new 
definition of derived nominal complements given above, but 
which have what appear to be gerundive nominals correspond- 
ing to the verb, such as the nominal complements in 2.39- 
Nominal complements of this type are called "action nomi- 
nals" in Lees (I963) and Fraser (1970). 

2.39a) John's refusing of the offer 

b) John's proving of the theorem 

c) the growing of tomatoes 

Chomsky (1970s 21^-15) believes that these complements 
belong to a third class of nominal complements distinct from 
both gerundive nominal complements and derived nominal com- 
plements. He does not identify them as "action nominals." 
Chomsky claims that these nominal complements appear to have 
the same internal structure of noun phrases that derived nom- 
inal complements have, as evidenced by the possibility of a 
determiner other than a possessive noun appearing (cf. 2.39c), 
but that prenominal adjectives seem quite unnatural in such 
complements. He says that the complement is limited in 



■-^. ^■u jii i -«if5=-. 



26 

TDroductivity as well, so that we cannot get structures like 
those in 2.40, Chomsky (1970:215) finally states that 
"there is an artificiality to the whole construction that 
makes it quite resistant to systematic investigation." 

2.^0a) -^^the feeling sad 

b) ■^''■the trying to win 

c) -=^the arguing about money 

d) *the leaving 

I v/ould like to put aside for now the problems involved 
in the forms in 2.39a and b and 2.40, and consider in detail 
the complement in 2.39c, the growing of tomatoes . Part of 
the data cited by Chomsky (1970:192) to support his claim 
that the Lexical Hypothesis provides the best explanation 
for the origin of derived nominals involves transitive verbs 
derived from intransitive verbs by the rule of CAUSATIVE 
FORiVlATION (cf. G, Lakoff. 1970), such as grow, as in John 
g rows tomatoes f derived from grow, as in tomatoes grow . At 
some point in its derivation, the underlying structure of 
John grows tomatoes can be represented by the tree in 2.^1., 
The structure underlying tomatoes grow is embedded as S-^ in 
the tree in 2.41, 

2.i^l) 



CAU3 




NP 

! 

tomatoes John 



Chomsky points out that there is a derived nominal com- 
plement, the growth of t om.atoes, which corresponds to the 



w»atfM»»<i ii f!^ ' J- 1^ *1^1 ^'^■■^ " M <— "TT i ^ wrf P — T'^ *-l' 



27 

sentence t omatoes grow , but not to the sentence John grov/s 
tomatoes, as v/ould be expected from the apparently parallel 
example of the derived noir.inal complement, the rejection of 
t he offer , which corresponds to the verb phrase reject the 
offer. In other v;ords, the rejection of the offer is an 
object nom.inal complement , v/hile the growth of tomatoes is a 
subject nominal complement, and Chom.sky takes the fact that 
there is no interpretation of the growth of tomatoes as an 
object nom.inal complem.ent as proof that there is no derived 
nominal com.plem.ent corresponding to John grows tomatoes . In 
terms of the Lexical H;^'pothesis, this is to be expected 
because John grows tomatoes involves a derivation from an 
underlying structure which includes tomatoes grow as an 
em.bedded sentence, as in the tree in 2.^1. This is consis- 
tent v/ith the claim that derived nominals are associated 
lexically v/ith the underlying verb. Since grow occurs in 
the lexicon only in the intransitive, noncausative sense, 
the transitive sense being derived transformationally by the 
rule of CAUSAIIV'S FORiVlATION, only the intransitive sense can 
have a corresponding derived nominal, according to the 
Lexical K^.'pio thesis. 
Some Counterexamples to Chomsky's Analysis 

Smith (1972) has pointed out that there are many excep- 
tions to Chomsky's claims concerning the occurrence of 
derived nominals corresponding to verbs derived by the rule 
of CAUSATIVE FORMATION. The verb convert occurs as both 
transitive and intransitive, and both forms have associated 



iniiir'ir^TrT'int'^niim-i . ■< ..■■ twumi ^ciii n wii^^ fc 'gj ^iMf ^»^..«> m': iw*i >'M f f tir«mt'''^>'^nmrr 



28 



derived nominals. Thus, Robert's conversion to hedonism , 
v/hich at some point in its derivation has an underlying 
structure like that of the embedded sentence S, in the tree 
in 2.4-2, and John's conversion of Robert to hedonism , which 
at some point in its derivation has an underlying structure 
like that of the whole tree in 2.42, are both acceptable 
derived nominal complements. The derived nominal complement 
the conversion of Robert , like many other nominal complements 
such as the shootina: of the hunters , is therefore interpreta- 
ble as either a subject nominal complement or as an object 
nominal complement. 

2.42 S, 







V 

1 

CAUSE 




NP 



NP 

I 
convert to Robert hedonism John 

Some verbs listed by Smith which also form derived nom- 
inals in both transitive and intransitive forms are explode . 
divide , accelerate , expand . repeat , neutralize , conclude 
and unify . She then points out that all the listed counter- 
examples share a morphological property! their derived nomi- 
nals are formed v/ith suffixes of Latin origin. She then 
goes on to claim that there are almost as many verbs of the 
'^ypQ convert as there are of the type .grow , and then states 
y/hat she sees as the conditioning factor in distinguishing 
the two types; "Whether or not a verb has a transitive 






I ll"l" !■ 



29 

noininal depends on how the norainal is formed. If a causa- 
tive verb takes a nominalizing suffix of Latin origin 
(- tion , -al, -ment) , then it has both transitive and intrans- 
itive derived nominals. If a causative verb does not take 
such a nominalizing suffix, then it occurs only intransi- 
tively in derived norninals." She then observes that, in 
general, verbs of Latin origin form derived nominals v/ith 
the suffixes of Latin origin, while verbs of y/hat she calls 
Anglo-Saxon origin form derived nominals with the suffixes 
-th, -n_ess, or ^ (null), v/hich can be considered to be 
native, as opposed to the suffixes borrowed from Latin. 

Smith has, based on the data above, reached the conclu- 
sion that "the grammar must distinguish at least tv/o classes 
of 'ca-usative' verbs: those that do and do not have transi- 
tive derived nominals." As v/e have just seen above, that 
distinction is to be based on something like a native/bor- 
rowed-Latin dichotomy. It seem.s very strange, however, to 
state that a part of the lexicon associated v/ith borrowed 
(Latinate) derivational suffixes shows more productivity 
than another part of the lexicon associated with native 
derivational suffixes. This raises the possibility that the 
causative verbs associated with native derivational suffixes 
also have corresponding derived nominals, but that for some 
reason Smith and Chomsky have failed to recognize them,. 
Using the definition of derived nom.inal com^plements I have 
developed above, I will now look for derived nominal comple- 
ments corresponding to sentences Vv'ith such causative verbs. 



30 

Nominals , of Causative s 

Consider verbs such as gcrow , raise and move , These 
verbs occur in both intransitive and transitive forms, the 
latter being derived by the rule of CAUSATIVE FORi'.iATICK. 
The verbs in the intransitive form are used in sentences 
such as those in 2. '4-3, which have the corresponding derived 
nominal complements in 2.^4 and ZAS^ 

2.4-3a) The tree grew slowly. 

b) The ter!)perature rose ra.pidly. 

c) The table moved m.ysteriously. 

2.'4-^la) the tree's slow grov/th 

b) the temperature's rapid rise 

c) the table's mysterious movement 

2,45a) the slow growth of the tree 

b) the rapid rise of the " tem.perature 

c) the m.ysterious movement of the table 

The verbs in the transitive form are used in sentences 
such as those in 2,46, which have the corresponding gerund- 
ive nominal complements in 2.47, and the corresponding 

q 
derived nominal com.plements in 2.48 and 2,49. 

2.46a) John grows tom.atoes skillfully. 

b) Tom raised the temperature deliberately, 

c) ilike moved the table accidentally. 

2.47a} John's growing tom,atoes skillfully 

b) Tom's raising the temperature deliberately 

c) Mike's moving the table accidentally 

2,48a) John's skillful growing of tomatoes 

b) Tom. 's deliberate raising of the temperature 

c) I.iike's accidental m.oving of the table 

2.49a) the skillful gi-owing of tomatoes by John 

b) the deliberate ra,ising of the temiperature by Tom 

c) the accidental m.oving of the table by luike 

T'ne derived nom.inal complemients in 2,48 and 2.49 are 
comoletelv consistent with the definition of derived nominal 



--'-- -1 -i' -i.«.^-. 



31 

complements v/hich I have adopted. I will therefore assume 
for now that - ing is one of the suffixes forming nominals 
in derived nominal complements, which happens to be homo- 
phonous with the gerundive suffix - ins; . 
Nominals of Dead.iectival Verbs 

The rule of CAUSATIVE FORiviATION is not the only rule by 
v/hich a verb may be derived from an underlying form with dif- 
ferent properties. Smith (1972) mentions that we find the 
derived nominal complement the light's dimness , but not 
^ John's dimness of the light . Dim is homophonous for three 
senses: adjective, intransitive verb derived by the rule of 
INGHOATIVi; FOMATION (cf. G. Lakoff, 1970), and transitive 
verb derived by the rule of CAUSATIVE FORMATION. Other 
adjective-verb sets related by these rules are low ; lower : 
lower and wide ; widen s widen. The adjectives are used in sen- 
tences like those in 2.50, v^hich have the corresponding ger- 
undive nominal complements in 2.51» and the corresponding 
derived nominal complements in 2.52 and 2.53' 

2.50a) The light was dim. 

b) The bridge v/as low. 

c) The road was wide. 

2.51s.) the light's being dim 

b) the bridge's being low 

c) the road's being wide 

2.52a) the light's dim.ness 

b) the bridge's lowness 

c) the road's width 

2.53a) the dimness of the light 

b) the lowness of the bridge 

c) the width of the road 



w<a — r-f I.-WI ■an>r«f— 1 



32 

The intransitive verbs are used in sentences like those 
in 2. 5'^! which have the corresponding gerundive nominal coiti- 
plements in 2.55* S-nd the corresponding derived noiTiinal com- 
plements in 2.56 and 2.57. 

2.5^'3.) The light slov/ly dimmed. 

b) The bridge gradually lowered. 

c) The road suddenly widened. 

2,55a.) the light's slowly diraraing 

b) the bridge's gradually lowering 

c) the road's suddenly widening 

2,56a) the light's slov/ dimming 

b) the bridge's gradual lowering 

c) the road's sudden v/idening 

2.57a) the slow dinmiing of the light 

b) the gradual lowering of the bridge 

c) the sudden widening of the road 

The transitive verbs are used in sentences like those 
in 2,58. which have the corresponding gerundive nominal com- 
plements in 2,59> and the corresponding derived nominal com- 
plements in 2.60 and 2.6l, 

2.58a) John suddenly dimmed the light. 

b) The tender gradually lov/ered the bridge, 

c) the city v/idened the road recently. 

2.59a) John's suddenly dimming the light 

b) the tender's gradually lowering the bridge 

c) the city's widening the road recently 

2.60a) John's sudden dimming of the light 

b) the tender's gradual lowering of the bridge 

c) the city's recent v/idening of the road 

2, 6 la) the sudden dimming of the light by John 

c) the gradual lowering of the bridge by the tender 
c) the recent widening of the road by the city 



All of the derived nominal complements in 2.56, 2.57» 
2.60 and 2.61 have nominals formed with the - ing suffix. 
Only the nominals in 2.52 and 2.53» which correspond to 



.33 

adjectives, are formed without the - ina: suffix. Both this 
set of adjectives and verbs and the previous set of verbs 
shov/ the same pattern. The form of the verb which is pre- 
sumably entered in the lexicon ( the intransitive form of 
£row, rise and move and the adjective form of dim , low and 
wide ) has a corresponding nominal in derived nominal comple- 
ments formed by means other than the - ins: suffix, while all 
the derived forms of the verbs have corresponding nominals 
in derived nominal complements formed with the -ing suffix. 
This suggests that the form of the associated nominals is 
specified in the lexicon, but that this specification is not 
retained when other forms of the verbs or adjectives are 
derived from the form entered in the lexicon. With verbs 
like convert , on the other hand, the specification of the 
form of the associated nominal is retained v/hen another form 
of the verb is derived from the lexical entry. ■>- 
Other Nominals in -ing 

Verbs derived from other underlying verhs are not the 
only verbs to correspond to nominals in derived nominal com- 
plements formed y;ith the -ing suffix. Sink is another verb 
which is used both intransitively and transitively. The 
intransitive use is illustrated in 2.62a, the transitive in 
2.62b. These sentences have the corresponding gerundive^ 
nominal complements in 2.63, and the corresponding derived 
nominal complements in 2.64 and 2.65. 

2.62a) The Bismark sank. 

b) The British Navy sank the Bismark. 



— c»-»>»»ir»> 



.3^ 

2,63a) the Bismark's sinking 

b) the British Navy's sinking the Bismark 

2.64-a) the Bismark's sinking 

b) the British Navy's sinking of the Bismark 

2.65a) the sinking of the Bismark 

b) the sinking of the Bismark by the British Navy 

Presumably, there is no specification of the form of 
the nominal in a derived nominal complem.ent corresponding to 
sink in the lexical entry, so that the form with - ing is sup- 
plied by the grammar for sink intransitive and transitive 
just as it is supplied for the nominals in derived nominal 
complements corresponding to sentences with the derived 
verbs grow , r aise , move , dim , lower and widen. One conse- 
quence of this is that it is possible for the gerundive nomi- 
nal complement and derived nom.inal complement corresponding 
to a particular sentence to be identical in surface struc- 
ture, as are the forms in 2.63a and 2.6^a, It jwill there- 
fore not alv/ays be possible to decide whether a nominal com- 
plement is actually a gerundive nominal complement or a 
derived nominal complement, unless the context supplies such 
inform.ation. 

One objection which might be miade to the identification 
of any nominal complemients with nominals formed V'/ith - ing as 
derived nominal comiplements is that they do not readily form 
plurals. However, it is not true that they never form plur- 
als j as shown by the examples in 2,66. 

2,66a) the wanderings of an old mind 

b) the leavings of a great feast 

c) the makings of a g-reat scholar 

d) "the cravings of a glutton 

e) the comings and goings of the workers 



^ajpr r i n a ara J i^^wiw»=c*^— ^^j— j— ^aai w i m w ■■*■ — iMi-a iiiii n ^ wi n, n i j p ^ ia 'n" f i » g i r i r' i t ■»..jrriw>^M«»J^i gj i ■ i_ ^ n •- rt fx ^p— ■■.^*«rwwi« *y i * J t ). •'^•'»-^»j*f»^- 



35 ■ ■ 

As was noted above (cf. 2-33) » riot all derived noainals 
form plurals, so the fact that many apparent derived nomi- 
nals in - ing do not is not strong counter-evidence. 

Paired Nominals 

The nominal complements in 2.39a and b (repeated here 
in 2.67), cited by Chomsky (1970:214), appear to be derived 
nominal complements with nominals formed with -ins which are 
parallel to the derived nominal complements in 2.68, which 
have nominals formed other than v/ith the suffix -ing. 

2.67a) John's refusing of the offer 
b) John's proving of the theorem 

2.68a) John's refusal of the offer 
b) John's proof of the theorem 

The derived nominal complements with nominals formed 

other than with the - ing suffix in 2.68 readily take prenom- 

inal adjectives, as was discussed above, so that we have 

derived nominal complements like those in 2.694^ 

2.69a) John's abrupt refusal of the offer 

b) John's brilliant proof of the theorem 

The nominal complements with nominals formed with the 
-ins suffix in 2.67 seem to less readily accept prenominal 
adjectives, as is indicated by the strangeness of the nom- 
inal complements in 2.70. That this strangeness is not due 
to the nominal having an -ing suffix alone is shown by the 
normal occurrence of prenominal adjectives with derived nom- 
inal complements with nominals foi-med with -ing in 2.4-8, 
2.49, 2.56, 2.57i 2.60 and 2.6l above. 

2.70a) ?John's abrupt refusing of the offer 

b) ?John's brilliant proving of the theorem 



w(^.ii«<-|UMb'<u« m- 



■ 36 • 

Chomsky (1970; 215) notes that derived nominal comple- 
ments with nominals formed with the -ing suffix seem rather 
clumsy when a derived nominal complement with a nominal 
formed other than with the -ina; suffix also exists. It is 
also these nominal complements which do not readily take a 
prenom-inal adjective. Since I have claimed above that the 
suffix -Ing in general appears in derived nom,inal comple- 
ments when no other means of form.ing the nominal is speci- 
fied, it seems possible that pairs of nominals like refusal > 
refusing and proof ; proving represent a misapplication of the 
rule supplying the -ir^ suffix, and the full regularity of 
derived nominal complements with forms like refusing and 
proving is blocked by the existance of forms like refusal 
and proof. ■ • _ ■ . 
Some Apparent Counterexamples 

Chomsky (1970S214) also noted that derived" nominal com- 
plements with - ing seem to be limited in production since we 
do not get forms like those in 2.^0, repeated here as 2.71. 

2.71a) *the feeling sad 

b) *the trying to v/in 

c) *the arguing about money 

d) ^'the leaving 

The forms in 2,71 would presumably correspond to the 
verb phrases in 2,72. 

2.72a) feel sad 

b) try to v/in 

c) argue about money 

d) leave 

Chomsky (1970:186) argues that sentences like 2.73a- 
have a structure of Noun Phrase-Verb-Predicate parallel to 



■ 37 ' ■ . . ■, 

the Noun Phrase-Verb-Noun Phrase structure of a sentence 

like 2.73b. 

2.73a) John felt sad. 

b) John felt sadness. 

There is a derived nominal complement which corresponds 
to 2.73b, John's feeling of sadness . Peter Menzel (personal 
communication) has pointed out to me that feelin^ is the nom- 
inal of a derived nominal complement, and thus would be fol- 
lowed by a preposition, presumably _of , so that the proper 
question is why we do not get » the feeling of sad . The pre- 
sence of the preposition means that any complem-ent of feel - 
ing v/ithin a derived nominal complement m.ust be nominalized. 
Hence, derived nominalization can apply to an embedded sen- 
tence like that in 2.73t)s but not to one like that in 2.73a, 
unless sad is nominalized to sadness as part of the nominal- 

iaation of fsel. 

■■ » 

The nominal complement in 2.71c, ^ the arguing about 
money, v;ould not be expected to occur because the regular 
derived nominal complement corresponding to argue about 
money is the argument about money . 

Chomsky (1970s21'^) gives as unacceptable the example. :in 
2.71d, the leaving. At least som,e speakers do accept nomi- 
nal complements like John's hurried leaving (cf . John left 
hurT-ieolv) , and I am told that such forms have appeared in 
print. My ovm judgment agrees v/ith that of Chomsky, however. 
The dialects that accept forms like John's hurried leaving 
present no problem to my analysis, so I will turn to those 
dialects that do not accept such formes. 



a .w J^ »* V> * «J' » '^ *i : ■■ 



38 

In my dialect, leave ( =depart ) , try (= attempt ) (cf. 
2.71b), he_ (= exist , occur , be present ) , have ( =possess ) 
and live ( =reside ) (and other verbs) are alike in that they 
have no corresponding nominal forms which appear in derived 
nominal complemem.ts, ., (I am refering here to be and ' have 
v/hen they are main surface verbs, not auxiliaries.) The 
existence of verbs such as these poses a serious challenge 
to the transformationalist position. It would appear that 
the rule (or rules) producing derived nominal complements is 
blocked from applying to underlying structures v/ith certain 
verhs as their predicates. It is Chomsky's claim that this 
is one of a number of facts supporting the Lexical. Hypothe- 
sis over the transformationalist position. 

The verbs mentioned above (v/hich are all of Germanic 

origin) occur in sentences like those in 2,7^. 

2.7^a) John tried vainly to win the race," 

b) John left hurriedly on the bus. 

■ c) There is a God. 

d) There was a riot yesterday. 

e) There is some wine in the bottle. 

f) John has a car, 

g) Bill usually lives in a hotel. 

The Latinate synonyms of those verbs (for meanings 
inherent in the sentences in 2.7^0 occur in sentences like 

those in 2, 75. ■ , . . 

2.75a-) John attempted vainly to win the race. 

b) John departed hurriedly on the bus. 

c) There exists a God. 

d) There occurred a riot yesterday. 

e) There is some v/ine present in the bottle, 

f) John possesses a car, 

g) Bill usually resides in a hotel. 



■4P'*»*»JWii M i. !jWi vt.z-^ * — I'l l f'mj mv^m n m n i i i inwaMAawcfcwi. .> twiaa»*wc^ 



39 



I find, the sentences in 2.75 "to be formal and even awk- 
v/ard in comparison to those in 2,74, a difference presumably 
attributable to the choice of predicate. 

All of these sentences have acceptable corresponding 
gerundive nominal complements, those in 2.76 corresponding 
to the sentences in 2.7^1 and those in 2.77 corresponding to 
the sentences in 2,75. 



2.76a 
b 
c 
d 
e 
f 



2.77a 
b 
c 
d 

e 
f 



John's trying vainly to win the race 

John's leaving hurriedly on the bus 

there being a god 

there being a riot yesterday 

there being some wine in the bottle 

John's having a car 

Bill's usually living in a hotel 

John's vainly attempting to win the race 

John's departing hurriedly on the bus 

there existing a god 

there occurring a riot yesterday 

there being some wine present in the bottle 

John's possessing a car 

Bill's usually residing in a hotel 



Again, the gerundive nominal complements in 2.76 based 
on Germanic verbs seem less formal than the gerundive nomi- 
nal com,plements based on Latinate verbs in 2,77. 

Finally, there are no derived nominal com.plements cor- 
responding to the sentences in 2.7^ and gerundive nominal 
complements in 2.76, the forms in 2.78 being unacceptable. 

2.7Sa) ^John's vain trying to win the race 

b) ^John's hurried leaving on the bus 

c) *the being of a god 

d) *the being of a riot yesterday 

e) *the being of some wine in the bottle 

f) -^John's having of a car 

g) ^Bill's usual living in a hotel 



■ ko 

On the other handj the derived nominal complements in 
2.79, which correspond to the sentences in 2.75 and -gerund- 
ive nominal complements in 2.77j are perfectly acceptable. 

2.79a) John's vain attempt to v/in the race 

b) John's hurried departure on the bus 

c) the existence of a god 

d) the occurrence of a riot yesterday 

e) the presence of some wine in the bottle 

f) John's possession of a car 

• g) Bill's usual residence in a hotel 

It seems, therefore, that it is possible for a Germanic 
(or native) verb to have no corresponding nominal in a 
derived nominal complement when there is a closely synony- 
mous Latinate verb with such a corresponding nominal. The 
transformationalist position may be maintained in the face 
of these examples in at least two v;ayst verbs like try, 
leave , be, have and live can be marked in the lexicon to 
block DERIVED NOMINALIZATION , which ignores the existence of 
the Latinate synonyms j or, some sort of lexical alternation 
may be posited, v/ith the Latinate option being mandatory in 
derived nominal complements. I prefer the second position, 
and I will discuss some different evidence for such lexical 
alternation for the synonyms of b^ in Chapter Three. 
Action „Nominals and the Head Noun Action 

In Chapter One I noted that derived nominal complem.ents 
did not occur as complements of the head noun action . If 
action nominal complements are a subclass of derived nominal 
complements, then they should not occur as com.plements of 
action either. The examples in 2.80 show that this is 
indeed the case. 



^1 

2.80a) ^John's action of opening of the door 

t) ^John's action of sinking of the boat 

c) *John's action of dimming of the light 

d) *John's action of refusing of the offer 

e) ■^'■John's action. of proving of the theorem 

Menzel (1970) argues that the head nouns associated 
with nominal complements in specific structures define what 
the nominal complement is, i.e., a complement of event is an 
event, a complement of action is an action, etc. It is 
ironic that those structures called "action nominals" cannot 
be complements of the head noun action , and thus are not 
actions. 
Summarv 

I have shown in this section that the so-called "action 
nominals" have the surface structure of derived nominal com- 
plements. That is, the nominal complements sometimes called 
■'action nominals" share with other derived nominal comple- 
ments the features of a possible variety of determiners, 
prenominal adjectives corresponding to adverbs in sentences, 
prepositions with all objects, the possibility of pluraliza- 
tion (although less for action nominals than is so for other 
derived nominal complements) , the complete absence of auxi- 
liaries, and the restriction from being the complement of 
the head noun action . The fact that action nominal comple- 
ments have nominals formed with the suffix -ing, as do ger- 
undive nominal complements, ought to have no bearing on this 
classification. 



L c ar mrmmm mri"*- ' *m ~ i-m- jt ^ . ^f f ^, ^ s ClK V t \ t 



Agj entive Nominal s ' ■ ■' 
Agentive nominal complements share the characteristics 
of derived nominal complements. The examples in 2.81, cor- ' 
respondinf^ to the sentences in 2 82, show that such comple- 
ments may have determiners other than possessive nouns, pre- 
nominal adjectives, object prepositions and pluralization. 
Agentive nominal complements do not have any reflexes of 
auxiliaries. 

2. 81a) the short-sighted designers of this building 

b) the unlucky holders of Imperial Russian bonds 

c) the greedy despoilers of the Earth 

2,82a) The ones who designed this building were 
short-sighted. 

b) The ones who held Im.perial Russian bonds 

were unlucky. 

c) The ones who despoil the Earth are greedy. 

Some characteristics of agentive nominal complem.ents 
deserve further com.ment. Agentive nominal complements never 
have possessive nouns as determiners v;hich corr-espond to 
underlying agents. When agentive nominal complements do ^ 
have possessive nouns as determiners, as in 2.83, the posses- 
sive nouns correspond to the underlying objects of the verbs 
in sentences v/hich correspond to the agentive nominal comple- 
ments, as in 2.84. 



)j'a.i 



i\f 



Vi 1 



ike's helper 



b) General Electric 's workers 

c) America's educators 

2.84a) Someone helps Mike. 

b) Some people work for General Electric. 

c) Some people educate America. 



,«CMiaAMasR*iKUKe^«Mi«^ 



It is usually possible to get an agentless passive sen- 
tence closely corresponding to such agent ive nominal comple- 
raents, as in 2.85a and c, although 2.85b seems odd, 

2.85a) Mike is helped. 

b)??General Electric is worked for. 

c) America is educated. (Not the stative reading.) 

However, the sentences in 2,84 (and 2.85) are not the 
only ones corresponding to the agentive nominal complements 
in 2.83, For instance, on a different reading, 2,83c, Amer - 
ica's educators , corresponds to the educators of America , 

The absence of possessive nouns corresponding to under- 
lying agents in agentive nominal complements is due to the 
fact that sentences corresponding to agentive nominal com.ple- 
ments always have nonspecified agents. Other derived nomi- 
nal complements' may also correspond to sentences with nonspe- 
cific agents, as in the refusal of the offer , which, like 
the agentless passive sentence, the offer was refused , cor- 
responds to an underlying structure of the form SOMEONE 
refused the offer . 

The prenominal adjectives in agentive nominal comple- 
ments are not alv/ays related to adverbs in corresponding 
sentences. Vendler (I968) points out that beautiful in the 
beaut if Vtl dancer may correspond in meaning to beautiful in 
the dan c er is beautiful, or to beautifully in SOr.'IEGNE dances 
bea utifully. 

The nominals in agentive nominal complements also seem 
to more readily form compounds with their objects than do 
the nominals of other derived nominal complements. Thus, we 



^^ - 

find many compounds like those in 2.86 corresponding to the 
agentive nominal complements in 2.8?. 

2.86a) lion tamer 

b) bookkeeper 

c) shock absorber 

2.87a) tamer of lions 

b) keeper of books 

c) absorber of shocks 

But some nominals in other derived nominal complements 
also form such compounds, as in 2.88, corresponding to the 
derived nominal complements in 2.89. 

2.88a) token payment 

b) tax assessment 

c) art collection 

2.89a) payment of a token 

b) assessment of a tax 

c) collection of art 

Agentive nominal complements have the same surface 
structure as derived nominal complements. I see no reason 
to not include agentive nominal complements in the class of 
derived nominal complements. 

Summary 

In this chapter I have defined derived nominal comple- 
ments in terms of surface structure as those nominal comple- 
ments which allow a variety of determiners, allow prenominal 
adjectives which correspond to adverbs in sentences, have 
prepositions with all objects, and allov; the nominal to be 
pluralized, but v;hich have no auxiliaries. Using this defi- 
nition, I have then argued that the structures knovm as 
action nominals and agentive nominals s.re really subclasses 
of the class of derived' nominal complements. 



■IKHllfr^WW. *-— 



NOTES 



Chomsky presumably also excludes agentive nominals 
formed with -er, although he never mentions them except to 
argue against the positing of abstract verbs underlying 
nominals v/hich otherwise have no corresponding predicates. 
Agentive nominal complements share several characteristics 
v/ith derived nominal complements, and I will argue below 
that agentive nominal complements are a special class of 
derived nominal complements. 

^ The derived nominal complements in 2.4a and 2.6a seem 
quite strange to me, but 2.4a, at least, is acceptable in a 
context such as the eagerness to please shov/n bv John , which, 
however, seems to correspond to the sentence, an eagerness 
to -please was shown by John , and not to the sentence in 2.1a. 

■^ The preposition of is the unmarked form. Some verbs 
have corresponding derived nominal complements with other 
prepositions, e.g., attack ; attack on . 

Simple past tense seems to imply a single occurrence 
of an event unless otherwise specified. Present perfect 
tense seems to imply only at least one occurrence of an event. 

■^ The constraint on the occurrence of adjacent forms 
with the - ing suffix, which blocks constructions like that 
in 2.35c, is discussed in Ross (1972b) and Milsark (1972) . 



■ ■ . >i6 

The formation of derived nominal complements corres- 
ponding to sentences with predicate nouns does not seem to 
be completely free. Thus, while John's manhood is possible, 
it corresponds to a limited meaning of John is a man , and 
J ane ' s womanho od seems very strange. Nevertheless, . many 
predicate nouns do have corresponding derived nominals, as 
can be seen in the sentences in i with the corresponding 
derived nominal complements in ii. 

ia) Joan enjoys being a mother. 

b) Ralph was governor recently. 

c) Billy is a minor. 

d) Stephen v/as a martyr. 

e) John is a member in good standing in the lodge. 

f) Sam is legally a pauper. 

iia) Joan en.ioys motherhood. 

b) Ralph's recent governorship 

c) Billy's minority 

d) Stephen's martyrdom 

e) John's membership in good standing in the lodge 

f) Sam's legal pauperdom 

Chomsky (1970s I98-99) argues that the inclusion of verbs 
and adjectives in a category of uredicator , as in G. Lakoff 
(I9705il5ff . } , is wrong, since nouns share the same distri- 
butional properties. The examples above of derived nominals 
corresoonding to predicate nouns supports Chomsky's conclu- 
sion. Chom.sky further claims, however, that such distribu- 
tional properties are properties of lexical categories. It 
a.-opears to be more correct to say that properties such as the 
stative-active distinction and the possession of a corres- 
ponding derived nominal, are properties of predicates. Such 
properties are exhibited by verbs (which are always predi- 
cates), adjectives (which presumably are always predicates 
in underlying structures) and predicate nouns. 



iM « ■ n mm m [ ii ■ ■ f i - r i TTTTT r"' 



47 

The corresponding gerundive nominal complements, as 
in i, which I find awkward, but still acceptable, are corn- , 
pletely unacceptable to at least some speakers. I have no 
explanation for this fact. 

ia) the tree's growing slowly 

b) the temperature's rising rapidly 

c) the table's moving mysteriously 

More generally, possessive inanimate nouns are often 
awkv/ard. Arnold Zvdcky (personnel communication) pointed 
out that historically inanimates have not alv/ays been able 
to form possessives in English. The two facts may be 
related. 

Although move is borrowed ultimately from Latin and 
the derived nominal corresponding to the intransitive form 
of the verb is formed v/ith - ment . move does not appear to 
belong to the class of Latinate verbs described by 
Smith (1972). 

^ I will discuss the fact that there does not take the 
possessive suffix in gerundive nominal complements in more 
detail in Ghai>ter Three. 



CHAPTER THREE 
THE PRODUCTIVITY OF DERIVED NOMINAL COMPLEfflENTS 

The Evidence for Lack of Pr-oductivity 
One of the three reasons Chomsky (1970:187-38) gives 
for rejecting a transformational account of the origin of 
derived nominal coniplements in favor of the Lexical Hypothe- 
sis is that gerundive nominal compleaients "can be formed 
fairly freely from propositions of subject-predicate form," 
while "productivity is much more restricted", for derived 
nominal complements. In support of this statement, Chomsky 
(1970:188-89) refers to the example of sentences like those 
in 3.1, which have the corresponding gerundive nominal com- 
plements in 3.2, and the corresponding derived "nominal com- 
plements in 3.3. v/hile the sentences in 3'^ have the corres- 
TDonding gerundive nominal complements in 3-5, t)ut the expec- 
ted corresponding derived nominal complements in 3*6 are not 
acceptable. 

3.1a) John is eager to please. 

b) o~ohn refused the offer. 

c) John criticized the book. 

3.2a) John's being eager to please 

b) John's refusing the offer 

c) John's criticizing the book 

3.3a) John's eagerness to please 

b) John's refusal of the offer 

c) John's criticism of the book 



a wraw t rxn wiiMja 'fcfT iii 



49 

3-^a) John is easy to please. 

b) John is certain to win the prize. 

c) John amused the children with his stones. 

3,5a) John's being easy to please 

b) John's being certain to win the prize 

c) John's amusing the children with his stories 

3.6a) ^John's easiness to please 

b) '-^John's certainty to win the prize 

c) ^John's amusement of the children with his stories 

Chomsky (1970:189) points out that there are acceptable 
derived nominal complements like those in 3-7 which superfi- 
cially resemble the unacceptable strings in 3-6, and which 
correspond to the sentences in 3-8 and gerundive nominal com- 
plements in 3.9, and comments, "these discrepancies between 
gerundive and derived nominal [complements] call for expla- 
nation- Specifically, we must determine why the examples of 
[3.6] are ruled out although those of [3-7] are permitted." 

3.7a) John's eagerness to please 

b) John's certainty that Bill will win the prize 

c) John's amusement at the children's ^antics 

3.8a) John is eager to please. 

b) John is certain that Bill will win the prize. 

c) John was amused at the children's antics. 

3.9a) John's being eager to please 

b) John's being certain that Bill will win the prize 

c) John's being amused at the children's antics 

In this chapter I will try to answer Chomsky's question 
by showing that sentences like those in 3-^» which do not 
have acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements, 
have undergone certain transformational rules in their deri- 
vations which sentences like those in 3-8, which do have 
acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements, have 
not undergone. Chomsky (1970 5 191) claims that this is so 



,50 
because derived nominal complements are noun phrases in deep 
structure, not embedded propositions. He claims that 
derived nominal complements correspond only to deep struc- 
ture phrase markers and a few transforms. I will argue that 
most rules are blocked from applying to derived nominal com- 
plements, or have different conditions on their applicabili- 
ty to derived nominal complements, because they are nominal- 
ized embedded propositions. I will also show that many 
rules can apply in the derivation of gerundive nominal com- 
plements that cannot apply in the derivation of derived nom- 
inal complements. 

I will show in detail how the application of a number 
of rules is blocked or modified in the derivation of derived 
nominal complements. I will discuss the effect of adopting 
a predicate-initial analysis on the formulation of rules, 
and certain consequent simplifications of the rules, parti- 
cularly with regard to derived nominal complements. I will 
argue that certain facts of derived nominal complements 
raise problems for the currently accepted formulation of the 
rule of IT-5XTR.\P0SITI0N , and that vdth a predicate-initial 
analysis, no rule of IT -EXTRAPOSITION is needed in a grammar 
of English. Throughout this chapter I will show that when- 
ever a sentence does not have an acceptable corresponding 
derived nominal coxmplement, it is because the sentence has 
undergone a rule in its derivation v;hich is blocked from 
applying to derived nominal complements. 



51 

Chomsky's Subcategorization Account 
I v/ill first consider Chomsky's (1970s 191) claim that a 
correct account oi the facts of productivity of derived nom- 
inal cooiplements should be based on subcategorization fea- 
tures. The pair of sentences in 3-10 and the pair of sen- 
tences in 3.11, with their corresponding gerundive and 
derived nominal complements, present parallel problems. 

3.10a) John is easy to please. 
b) John is eager to please. 

3.11a) John is certain to win the prize. 

b) John is certain that Bill v/ill win the prize. 

Ilhe corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3-12 

and 3.13 and the corresponding derived nominal complements 

in 3.1^b and 3.15b are all. acceptable, while the expected 

corresponding derived nominal complements in 3'l^a and 3 •15a 

are not acceptable. 

3,12a) John's being easy to please 
b) John's being eager to please 

3,13a) John's being certain to win the prize 

b) John's being certain that Bill v/ill win the prize 

3.l4a) -John's easiness to please 
b) John's eagerness to please 

3.15a) ^John's certainty to v/in the prize 

b) John's certainty that Bill will v/in the prize 

Chomsky (1970:191) attempts to explain the acceptabili- 
ty of the derived nominal complements in 3>l^b and 3'15bs in 
contrast v/ith the unacceptability of forms like those in 
3.l4a and 3.15a, in terms of the subcategorization features 
of eager, easy and certain . Chomsky states that eager is 
entered in the lexicon v/ith a strict subcategorization 



iii -r « YTfc ii ' I ' ll ' ---^ ■"-- — [fmnwr— • ■ " 1 



52 
feature indicating, that it can take a sentential compleinent, 
as in 3.16, derived iroai underlying structures so.T.ething 

like those in 3-1? • 

3.16a) John is eager to please, 

b) John is eager for us to please. 

3.17a) John is eager [^John please SOMEONE 3^ 
b) John is eager [gWe please SOMEONE]^ 

Chomsky says that no further comment is necessary to 
account for the acceptability of the derived nominal comple- 
ments in 3-18. 

3.18a) John's eagerness to please 

b) John's eagerness for us to please 

According to the Lexical Hypothesis, the lexical entry 
for eager is also the entry for eagerness, and the strict 
subcategorization feature applies to adjective and nominal 
alike. Thus, eager can appear in a construction of the form 
Noun Phrase-Predicate-Sentential Complements and eagerness 
can appear in a construction of the form Possessive 
Noun-Nominal -S entential Complement . 

Chomsky claims that, on the other hand, there is no 
such subcategorization feature in the lexical entry for easy 
and that there are no base phrase markers of the form 
easy -3 entential Complement. Chomsky (I970tl91) says that 
easy aopsars in base phrase markers as an adjective predi- 
cated of propositions as subject^ as in the sentences in 
3.19, with sentences like those in 3-20 derived by IT -EXTRA - 
POSITION, and with sentences like those in 3-21 derived in 
turn from extraposed sentences by TOUCH-MO/EiviiiNr. 



Ii _ l m iMWirn rr . - llllli ■ i.|i l n M 1 11 1 1 . M M lllill ■■ > i ■— ■■■■■I I Mll^ ■ rMBffT m Mm' HH I l i H Wi ll l 



53 

3.19a) To please John is easy.'' 

b) For' us to please John is easy. 

3.20a) It is easy to please John. 

b) It is easy for us to please John. 

3,21a) John is easy to please. 

b) John is easy for us to please. 

3.22a) John is eager to please. 

b) John is eager for us to please. 

3ven though v/e get sentences like those in 3.21, which 
in surface form exactly parallel those in 3' 22, Chomsky 
argues that just as easy cannot be introduced into struc- 
tures of the form Subject-Predicate-Sentential Coniplement, 
ea siness cannot be introduced into structures of the form 
Possessive Moun-Nominal-Sentential Complement, thus prevent- 
ing the formation of derived nominal complements like those 

in 3.23. 

3.23a) '""John's easiness to please 

b) ■^•John's easiness for us to please 

Chomsky assumes that gerundive nominal complements are 
transformationally derived from structures which are in turn 
derived from base structures. That is, GiiRUNDI7£ NOMI.NALI- 
ZATION applies to embedded sentences which have already been 
subject to all or almost all cyclical rules. It is there- 
fore oossible to have gerundive nominal complements like 
those in 3-2^. 

3.24a) John's being easy to please 

b) John's being easy for us to please 

Chomsky is assuming that transformations apply to struc- 
tures dominated by an S but not to structures dominated by 
an MP even though the tv/o types of structures may be com- 
posed of the same lexical items. 



"r* — - " nT— '— — ■" "WW — ~i^ "i I I I " ••M *<^ "»; r-' 



■ 5^ 

similarly, Chorasky (19?0:191) states that certain , with 
the meaning used in 3,11b, John is certain that Bill will 
win the prize , also has a subcategorization feature Vvhich 
allows certain in this meaning to take a sentential comple- 
ment in a structure like [3[j,pJ_ohn].^p[,^^[ ybe certain ],^,rc;Bill 
will win the prize 1^1,^,p1o , from which 3.1113 is derived. 
Thus, the derived nominal certainty , corresponding to this 
meaning of certain , has the same subcategorization feature, 
and can appear in derived nominal complements with a senten- 
tial complement, as in 3.15b, John's certainty that Bill 
will win the prize . 

Like the lexical entry for easy, the lexical entry for 
certain in the meaning used in 3.11a, John is certain to win 
the prize, has no subcategorization feature allov/ing certain 
in this meaning to take a sentential complement. Chomsky 
says that certain in this meaning appears in b^se phrase 
markers as an adjective predicated of propositions as sub- 
ject, as in for John to win the prize is certain . Applying 
the same arg^aments Chomsky used with easy , sentences like 
it is certain for John to win the prize are derived by 
IT-EXTRAPOSITION, and sentences like John is certain to win 
the prize are derived by RAISING-TO-SUBJEGT from extraposed 
sentences, "^ 

According to the Lexical Hypothesis, derived nominals 
occur in nominal structures corresponding to the base phrase 
markers of sentences. Such nominal structures are not sub- 
ject to most rules which apply to sentences. The derived 



ff -ti-T WM»^ n^ '* " t! g*— ^ n *r'ir^ '!»**■■ >■■'• 



'55 ■ 

nominal certainty corresponding to the second meaning of 
certain , like easiness , cannot occur in nominal structures 
corresponding to derived phrase markers, 

Chomsky has argued that the lack of productivity of 
derived nominal complements is explained by the Lexical 
Hypothesis, Under that hypothesis, ^John' s easiness to 
pleas e is not acceptable because the lexical entry underly- 
ing easy and e asiness does not have a subcategorization 
feature allov;ing sentential complements. On the other hand, 
John's eagerness to please is acceptable because the lexical 
entry underlying eager and eagerness has a subcategorization 
feature allowing sentential complements. 

RAISING Rules 
RAISING-TO-OBJEGT 

As v/as indicated in Note 2 of this chapter, RAISING is 
a general term for three different m.ovement transformations. 
The first movement I will discuss here is from subject of an 
embedded sentence to object of the next highest sentence, as 
has occurred in the derivation of the sentences in 3.25, 
which are derived from the same underlying structures as the 
sentences in 3.26. 

3,25a) John believes himself to be heroic. 

b) Bill expects them to be here soon. 

c) Dick is believed to have ''x:>^qx\ involved by everyone, 

3.26a) John believes that he is heroic. 

b) Bill expects that they will be here soon, 

c) Everyone believes that Dick was involved. 

That the nouns in question have been raised to object 
position in the higher sentences is indicated by the reflex- . 



ive form himself in 3 ■25a, the accusative them in 3- 25b and 
the fact that Dick is the derived subject in a passive sen- 
tence in 3.25c. Reflexivization is restricted to clause 
mates in English, pronouns take the accusative form in 
object position and an underlying object becomes the surface 
subject in passive sentences. 

The sentences in 3-25, which have undergone RAIS- 
IMG-TO -OBJECT, have the acceptable corresponding gerundive 
nominal complements in 3-27, but no acceptable correspond- 
ing derived nominal complements, the forms in 3-28 being 
unacceptable. 

3.27a) John's believing himself to be heroic 

b) Bill's expecting them to be here soon 

c) Dick's being believed by everyone to have been 

involved 

3.28a) "-John's belief of himself to be heroic 

b) *3ill's expectation of them to be here soon 

c) -^^Dick's belief by everyone to have been involved 

The sentences in 3-26, which have not undergone RAIS- 
ING -TO -OBJECT, have the acceptable corresponding gerundive 
nominal comDlements in 3.29 and derived nominal complements 
in 3-30. 

3.29a) John's believing that he is heroic 

b) Bill's expecting that they will be here soon 

c) everyone's believing that Dick v;as involved 

3.30a) John's belief that he is heroic 

b) Bill's expectation that they will be here soon 

c) everyone's belief that Dick v/as involved 

RAISINS -TO -SUBJECT 

The second movement is from subject of an embedded sen- 
tence to subject of the next higher sentence, as has occurred 



lii tfn * M »«— I 'li i ^m 



- 57 ■ , 

in the derivation of the sentences in 3.31} which are 
derived from the same underlying structures as the sentences 
in 3.32. 

3.31a) John is certain to win the prize, 

b) Bill is likely to be drafted. 

c) Jerry appeared to open the door, 

3.32a) It is certain that John will win the prize, 

b) It is likely that Bill will be drafted, 

c) It appeared that Jerry opened the door. 

The sentences in 3.31» which have undergone 
RAISING-TO-SUBJEGT, have the acceptable corresponding ger- 
undive nominal complements in 3.33 » but no acceptable cor- 
responding derived nominal complements, the forms in 3.3^ 
being unacceptable. 

3.33a) John's being certain to win the prize 

b) Bill's being likely to be drafted 

c) Jerry's appearing to open the door 

3.3^!-a) * John's certainty to win the prize 

b) ^Bill's likelihood to be drafted „ 

c) *Jerry'3 appearance to open the door 

The sentences in 3.32, which have not undergone 
RAISING-T0-SU5JBCT, have the acceptable corresponding ger- 

o 

undive nominal complements in 3.35. 

3,35a) it(s) being certain that John will win the prize 

b) it(s) being likely that Bill will be drafted 

c) it(s) appearing that Jerry opened the door 

The apparently corresponding derived nominal comple- 
ments in 3.36 are not acceptable, but the derived nominal 
complements in 3.37f v/hich have the same word order as the 
sentences in 3.32, but do not have any reflex of _it, are 
acceotable. 



58 

3.3Da) ""'its certainty that John will win the prize 

b) '•'its likelihood that Bill will be drafted 

c) "its appearance that Jerry opened the door 

3.37a) the certainty that John will win the prize 

b) the likelihood that Bill will be drafted 

c) the appearance that Jerry opened the door 

I will argue below (cf. Dummy Subject Insertion ) that 
it in sentences like those in 3*32 is inserted, and not pre- 
sent in underlying structures. The unacceptability of the 
forms in 3-36, and the acceptability of the forms in 3.37 is 
simply explained by blocking IT -INSERTION in derived nominal 
complements. 
TOUGH - MOVEMSNT 

The third RAISING movement is from object of an embed- 
ded sentence to subject of the next higher sentence, as has 
occurred in the derivation of the sentences in 3-38, which 
are derived from the same underlying structures as the sen- 
tences in 3- 39- •• 

3.38a) John is easy to please. 

b) Algebra is difficult to learn. 

c) This test is fun to take. 

3.39a) It is easy to please John. 

b) It is difficult to learn algebra. 

c) It is fun to take this test. 

The sexitences in 3 -389 v/hich have undergone TOUGH-MOVE- 
;vlEXT, have the acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal 
complements in 3 - ^0 ^ but no acceptable corresponding derived 
nominal com.plementSj the forms in 3>^1 being unacceptable. . 

3.'^-0a) John's being easy to please 

b) algebra's being difficult to learn 

c) this test's being fun to take 



■iOrflinwf L- *iiwa 



'■■■ ^^ 

3.^1a) '""John's easiness to please 

b) ^algebra's difficulty to learn 

c) ""this test's fun to take 

The sente'nces in 3-39» which have not undergone 
TOUGH -MOY£MENT , have the acceptable corresponding gerundive 
nominal complements in 3-^2. 

3.^2a) it(s) being easy to please 

b) it(s) being difficult to learjn algebra 

c) it(s) being fun to take this test 

The apparently corresponding derived nominal complements 
in 3.43 are not acceptable, but those in J.^^k are acceptable.^ 
The argUTflent used v/ith the examples in 3.36 and 3-37 applies 
here a.s v/ell. 

3.^3a) *its easi-ness to please John 

b) *its difficulty to learn algebra 

c) "'its fun to take this test 

3.'^^a) ?the easiness of pleasing John 

b) the difficulty of learning algebra 

c) the fun of taking this test 

RAI3ING-T0-0BJ.ciCT, RAISING -TO -SUBJECT and . TOUGH -MOVE - 
itSNT do not apply in the derivation of derived nominal com- 
plements. The three rules share the propertjr of moving a 
noun phrase to a higher sentence. They appear to apply at 
the same point in the cycle. "''^ G. Lakoff (I968) has argued 
that there is only one rule of RAISING ( LT -REPLACmiSNT in 
his paper). To collapse the three t^.-pes of RAISING to one, 
Lakoff has to v^-rite a complex rule, v/hich includes simul- 
taneous structural descriptions. I consider such a rule to 
be unlikely in a natural language. I v;ill, therefore, sus- 
pend judgment on whether it is possible to collapse the 
RAISING rules. 



1 ^- w w r ma.' I i .i i » - «n ~ <i « i>w« m >ii' « ■< ■ *■> • «— m r M m e 1 1 



60 

- IT -EXTRAPOSITION 
Introduction 

The rule of IT -EXTRAPOSITION v/as proposed by Pvosenbaum 
(1967) to account for the relationship of sentences like 
those in 3-^5 to the sentences in 3 '^6. 

3.^5a) That John left so early is surprising. 

b) For John to quit now would be a disaster. 

c) That Marjr will come to her senses is to be 

hoped for. 

3'^6a) It is surprising that John left so early. 

b) It would be a disaster for John to quit now. 

c) It is to be hoped for that Mary will come to 

her senses. 

In Rosenbaum's analysis, the subject i/t in the sentences 
in 3A6 is present in deep structure as the head noun of 
noun phrases with the structure of 3.4'7. The rule of IT-EX- 
TRAPOSITION is given in 3.^8. 

3.47) NP 

if 

i 

it that John left so early 

3.if8) IT-EXTRAPOSITION (Optional) 

X N S Y 

[-i-PROd.e. it)] ==^ 1, 2, 0, 14^3 

1 2 34 

If IT-£XTRAPOSITIOM does not apply^ the head pronoun it 
is deleted. If PT -EXTRAPOSITION does apply, moving the 
embedded sentence to the right end of the next higher sen- 
tences the head pronoun it is isolated in subject position, 
and no longer subject to deletion. 

In this section I will first discuss the derivation of 
certain examples via the rule of I T -aX TRAP S I T I N , showing 



tj^S-^m-Biti-^ 



61 

that the pattern of occurrence of derived nominal comple- 
ments casts doubt on the validity of IT -EXTRAPOSITION as pro- 
posed by Rosenbaum. I will then consider other evidence 
counter to his analysis, and argue that there is no rule of 
IT-SXTRAPOSITIGN in English grammar. In a later section 
(cf. NP -PROPOSING ) I will present an alternate analysis of 
the relationship between the sentences in 3-^5 and 3.46. 
V/ith S ub.iects of Predic ate Ad.iectives 

We have seen above that sentences like those in 3-^9 
have acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal .complements, 
as in 3.50, and derived nominal complements, as in 3-51- 

3.49a) It is certain that John will win the prise. 

b) It is difficult to learn algebra. 

c) It is fun to take this test. 

3.50a) it(s) being certain that John will win the prize 

b) it(s) being difficult to learn algebra 

c) it(s) being fun to take this test 

3,51ai) the certainty that John will win -the prize 
ii) the certainty of John's winning the prize 

b) the difficulty of learning algebra 

c) the fun of taking this test 

According to Chomsky's (1970) analysis, the sentences 
in 3.49 are derived from the phrase markers underlying the 
sentences in 3-52 by the rule of IT-EXTRAPOSITION. The sen- 
tences in 3.52 do not have acceptable corresponding gerund- 
ive no-Tiinal complements or derived nominal complements, as 
is shown by the unacceptability of the expected forms in 
3.53 and 3- 54. 

3.52ai) That John will win the prize is possible, 

ii) John's winning the prize is certain. 

bi) To learn algebra is difficult, 

ii) Learning algebra is difficult. 



62 



3.52ci) To take this test is fua. 
ii) Taking this test is fun. 

3.53ai) *that John will win the prize's being certain 
ii) -"-John's winning the prize's being certain 

bi) '^to learn algebra's being difficult 
ii) *learning algebra's being difficult . , 

ci) -"-to take this test's being fun 
ii) * taking this test's being fun 

3.5^ai) *that John will win the prize's certainty 
ii) *John's winning the prize's certainty 
bi) *to learn algebra's difficulty 

ii) ^learning algebra's difficulty 
ci) *to take this test's fun 
ii) * taking this test's fun 

The Lexical Hypothesis predicts that there should be 

derived nominal complements corresponding to the sentences 

in 3.52, which are supposedly closer to base phrase markers 

than the extraposed sentences in 3'^9» but the unacceptabi- 

lity of the strings in 3-53 and 3-5^, in contrast to the 

acceptability of the noniinal complements in 3-50 and 3-51f 

12 

is counter to that prediction. ^ 

With Passives 

3y Rosenbaum's analysis, IT-EXTRAPOSITION also applies 
to passive sentences with complements in the derived subject 
position. Thus, the extraposed sentences in 3-55 are 
derived from the phrase markers underlying the passive sen- 
tences in 3.56. The sentences in 3-56 do not have any accep- 
table corresponding derived nominal complements, the expec- 
ted forms in 3-57 being unacceptable, but the extraposed pas- 
sive sentences in 3-55 have the corresponding derived nomi- 
nal complements in 3 08. 

3.55a) It was discovered by John that Jerry was a 
bigamist. 
b) It is doubted by them that you will go. 



U.M ftafr-v'tfr^'fyirMiH 



63 

3.56a) That Jerry was a bigamist was discovered by John 
b) That you will go is doubted by them. 

3.57a) "*that Jerry was a bigamist's discovery by John 
b) -""that you will go's doubting by them 

3.58a) the discovery by John that Jerry was a bigamist 
b) the doubting by them that you will go 

Chomsky suggests that derived nominal complements such 

as those in 3-59 are derived by the obligatory application 

of a rule called AGENT-POSTPOSING (cf. Passive Sentences 

below) to the underlying noun phrases in 3-60 . 

.3.59a) the necessity for John to leave 

b) the likelihood that John will leave 

3.60a) fofor John to leavel^'s necessity 

b) [cthat John will leavej^'s likelihood 

This solution v/ill explain why the examples in 3 '51 and 
3,59 are acceptable while those in 3-53 and 3-5'-^ are not. 
AGENT-POSTPOSING seems to be a poor name for a rule which 
moves complements in such structures, however, "and there is 
a curious problem with forms like those in 3-57 and 3-53> 
If the fact that the derived nominal complements in 3 '58 are 
acceptable but not those in 3-5? is to be explained by the 
ad hoc obligatory application of AGENT-POSTPOSING, we are 
left with the problem of accounting for the post-verbal 
bv-phrases in 3-58. I must reject Chomsky's implied claim 
that AGENT -POSTPOSIKG has applied in the derivations of the 
derived nominal complements in 3 08, but not in those in 
3.59, and in so doing, reject his claim that AGENT-POSTPOS- 
ING moves any complement within derived nominal complements. 



- MgipaMi M h.mll WiUiAJ W M'nJM i iiaia > i —! > irrc^T" i' " i" 



64 . , 
With PsYGhQlo:^ical Predicates 

PT -EXTRAPOSITION can also apply to sentences like those 
in 3.61. These are active sentences with complements as 
subjects. The verbs which permit this construction share a ■ 
number of other characteristics, and vdll be called psycho- 
logical predicates here (cf. Postal, 1971' 39-5^, and the 
section Psychological Predicates , below). The sentences in 
3.61 are subject to IT-SXTRAPOSITION in Rosenbaum's analysis, 
yielding the sentences in 3-62. 

3.61a) That John is here surprises me. 

b) For Mary to be so late worries 3111. 

c) For Jim to leave now would disturb Alice. 

3.62a) It surprises me that John is here. 

b) It worries Bill for Mary to be so late. 

c) It would disturb Alice for Bill to leave now. 

Neither the sentences in 3.61 nor the sentences in 3*62 
have acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements, 
as shov/n by the unacceptable forms in 3.63 and ^3.64, and 
there are no acceptable derived nominal complements with 
determiners v;hich are not possessive nouns corresponding to 
the extraposed sentences in 3-6l, as is shown by the unac- 
ceptable examples in 3-65 ■ 

3,63a) -"-that John is here's surprise to me 

b) *for Mary to be so late's worry to Bill 

c) *for Jim to leave now's disturbance of Alice 

3.64a) *it3 surprise to me that John is here 

b) *its v/orry to bill for Mary to be so late 

c) "its disturbance of Alice for Bill to leave now 

3.65a) *the surprise to me that John is here 

b) *the worry to Sill for Mary to be so late 
. c) ^'the disturbance of Alice for Bill to leave now 



■' riffLt'"'» ■Iriitri^ f Ji^rr^-tTlf'^T''-"— ■"— '^■"*''~^-— — ^-t'"-^ — ^»^- r ■,~.iii^n ra i^ ■ rn |.-«j^-j>* ■■! ■ 



65 

Psychological predicates appear to be the only predi- 
cates which form extraposed sentences which do not have 
acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements. 
Fur ther Problems with the Rule 

The acceptable derived nominal coaiplements in 3-51» 
3.53 and 3.59 all show the same order of major constituents 
as the extraposed sentences in 3.^6, 3-^9 and 3-55. There 
is no subject pronoun it in these derived nominal comple- 
ments. This fact can be explained by having it in extra- 
posed sentences supplied by a rule of PT-INSiRTION , v/hich 
does not apply to derived nominal complements (cf. Dummy. 
Subj ect Insertion , below) . The arguments for not having it . 
present in deep structure are well summarized in Stockv/ell 
et al. (1973j 527ff . ) • Given the absence of It in underlying 
structures, the derived nominal complements in 3-51. 3-5Q 
and 3.59 may be taken as corresponding directly-'' to the extra- 
posed sentences cited above. If Chomsky's claim that derived 
nominal complements correspond only to base phrase markers 
is at all correct, then extraposed sentences would appear to 
be more basic than nonextraposed sentences. 

Although this conclusion goes against a generally accep- 
ted analysis, there is some independent supporting evidence. 
The intransitive verbs seem , appear and happ en take subject 
complements which must be extraposed. ^ The extraposed sen- 
tences in 3.66 are acceptable while the nonextraposed ones 
in 3 '6? are not. 



)6 



3.66a) It seems that John is late. 

b) It appears that Iviildred has fallen dov/n. 

c) It happens that Kike is a brilliant student. 

3.67a) "That John is late seeas. 

b) *That Mildred has fallen dovrn appears. 

c) *That Mike is a brilliant student happens. 

It would seem that at least sosie sentences can be 
derived only by obligatory application of IT -EXTRAPOSITION , 
I have noted above in Chapter One certain arguments for 
assuming an underlying predicate-initial order in English. 
All extraposed sentences, including those resulting from the 
obligatory application of IT -EXTRAPOSITION, have a predi- 
cate-initial order, if the presence of the semantically 
empty pronoun it in subject position is discounted. I pro- 
pose that there is no rule of IT-^-XTRAPCSITION in English, 
and that nonextraposed sentences are derived from the struc- 
tures underlying extraposed sentences. I will discuss the 
details of such derivations in the section on NP-PREPOSING 
belov;. 

Passive Sentences 

I v;ili turn next to a problem v/hich is not raised by 
Chomsky's examples; that of derived nominal complements cor- 
responding to passive sentences. The sentences in 3.68 have 
the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3-69 and 
derived nom.inal complements in 3.70. 

3.6Sa) John refused the offer. 

b) John criticized the book. 

c) The enemy destroyed the city. 

d) The jury acquitted Abby. 

3.69a) John's refusing the offer 
b) John's criticizing the book 



■* OTif> i t'.r* i -hr^tj-»- ■ i r^"rrn-^'i i -rTffr ii » i 'T- 7f-rr— T-111- -u»»t^fc>y.»T».;*rt-'*J-'^>»WMiWi>w » *'i W il^wnt^?^ 



67 

3.69c) the enemy's destroying the city 
d) the jury's acquitting Abby 

3-?0a) John's refusal of the offer 

b) John's criticism of the book 

c) the enemy's destruction of the city 

d) the jury's acquittal of Abby 

The sentences in 3-68 also have the corresponding pas- 
sive sentences in 3- 71- 

3 •71a) The offer was refused by John. 

b) The book vfas criticized by John. 

c) The city was destroyed by the enemy. 

d) Abby was acquitted by the jury. 

The passive sentences in 3-71 have the corresponding 
gerundive nominal complements in 3.72, but only the sen- 
tences in 3 '710 and d have the corresponding derived nominal 
complements in 3 •73c and d, v/hile the strings in 3 ■73a and b, 
v/hich seem to correspond to the sentences in 3.71a and b, 
are not acceptable. 

3.72a) the offer's being refused by John 

b) the book's being criticized by John 

c) the city's being destroyed by the enemy 

d) Abby's being acquitted by the jury 

3.73a) *the offer's refusal by John 

b) """the book's criticism by John 

c) the city's destruction by the enemy 

d) Abby's acquittal by the jury 

The derived nominal complements in 3'7^» all of v/hich 
are acceptable, are related to the derived nominal comple- 
ments in 3«70 and 3 "73* but do not correspond exactly to any 
sentences. These derived nominal complements would corres- 
pond to predicate-initial underlying structures. 

3.7^a) the refusal of the offer by John 

b) the criticism of the book by John 

c) the destruction of the city by the enemy 

d) the- acquittal of Abby by the jury 



68 ■ 

Chomsky's claim that derived nominal complements corres- 
pond only to base phrase markers creates a problem here if a 
predicate-initial analysis is not adopted. Not only are 
there derived nominal complements corresponding to active 
sentences, as in 3.70, there are also derived nominal comple- 
ments corresponding to some, but not all, passive sentences, 
as in 3.73, and there are derived nominal complements which 
do not correspond to any sentences at all (what might be 
called "half-passives") , as in 3'7^- 

Chomsky (1970: 202ff . ) proposes two transformations 
which must both apply in the derivation of passive sentences 
from phrase markers parallel to those underlying active sen- 
tences, one of vi^hich also can apply to noun phrases (includ- 
ing derived nominal complements) . Chomsky proposes a rule 
of NP-PREPOSING which will transform phrases like those in 
3/75 into phrases like those in 3-76. This rul'e thus applies 
to noun phrases whether they have a simple noun or a derived 
nominal as their head. 

3.75a) the picture of John 

b) the bottom of the barrel 

c) the destruction of the city 

d) the murder of John 

3.76a) John's picture 

b) the barrel's bottom (the literal meaning) 

c) the city's destruction 

d) John's murder 

There are similar phrases which do not undergo the rule 
of NP-PREPGSING, and again the phrases can have either a sim- 
ple noun or a derived nominal as their head. The phrases in 
3.77 do not have acceptable corresponding forms like those 
in 3-78. 



i^rtaBcBg:u*g=inititi!»girwflita *i>fciii«»i ■i'btbit w w.nmn 



69 '; . • ; • 

3.77a) the algebra of revolution 

b) the strategy of war 

c) the refusal of the offer 

d) the criticism of the book 

3.78a) ^revolution's algebra 

b) *war's strategy 

c) *the offer's refusal 

d) *the book's criticism 

Chomsky proposed a rule of AGENT -POSTPOSING to move the 
subject noun phrase to a post-verbal position in phrase mark- 
ers v/hich are to become passive sentences. NP-PREPOSING 
v/ould then apply to move the object noun phrase into 
pre-verbal position. Chomsky goes on to say that since pas- 
sivizability is a property of verbs (i.e., is a governed 
process) , then derived nominal complements containing nov-ni- 
nals corresponding to such verbs can also be passivized. It 
would seem that the passivizability of a verb is best expressed 
by having AGENT -POSTPOSING apply optionally to structures 
v/ith verbs which can appear in passive sentence's. That is, 
verbs v/hich can appear in passive sentences are marked as 
allowing the optional application of AGENT -POSTPOSING, while 
verbs which cannot appear in passive sentences are marked as 
not allowing the application of AGENT -POSTPOSING. On the 
other handj NP-PREPOSING applies obligatorily in the deriva- 
tion of any sentence in which AGSNT-POSTPOSIKG has already 
applied, and optionally in the derivation of any noun phrase 
(including derived nominal complements) whose head noun (or 
nominal) is marked as allowing the rule. A given lexical 
entry may therefore be marked differently for AGENT-POST- 
POSING and for NP-PREPOSING. 



70 

I will claim here that there is a rule of AGENT-PREPOS- 
ING (the reverse of Chomsky's AGENT-POSTPOSING) which 
applies to predicate-initial underlying structures to yield 
active sentences and nominal cornple.iients such as those in 
3,68, 3.69 and 3.70. If AGENT -PREPOSING does not apply, 
then the resulting obligatory application of NF-PREPOSING 
gives the passive sentences and gerundive nominal comple- 
ments in 3.71 and 3-72. If AGENT-PREPOSING does not apply 
in the derivation of derived nominal complements, then 
NP-PRSPOSING applies optionally with some underlying verbs, 
giving the pairs of derived nominal complements in 3 '73c 
and d and 3.74c and d, and not at all with other verbs, 
giving the derived nominal complements in 3 •74a and b. 

By Chomsky's analysis, passive sentences are derived 
from structures underlying active sentences by the applica- 
tion of two rules, both of which must apply. Ey my analysis, 
all sentences are derived from underlying predicate-initial 
structures, with active sentences derived by one rule and 
passive sentences by another rule. 

NP-PREPOSING 
With Simple Noun Phrases 

The application of AGSNT-pREPOSING to underlying pre- 
dicate-initial structures with agents yields active sen- 
tences like those in 3.?9t and their corresponding gerundive 
nominal complements in 3. 80 and derived nominal complements 
in 3 '81. 



71 



3.79a 

b, 
c 
d 

3.80a 
b 

G 

d 

3. 81a 
b 
c 

d 



'The enemy destroyed the city. 
The jury acquitted Abby. 
John refused the offer. 
John criticized the book. 

the enemy's destroying the city 
the jury's acquitting Abby 
John's refusing the offer 
John's criticizing the book 

the enemy's destruction of the city 
the jury's acquittal of Abby 
John's refusal of the offer 
John's criticism of the book 



If AGENT-PRiiPCSING does not apply to the structures 
underlying the active sentences and nominal complements in 
3.79, 3.80 and 3.81, then the rule of NP -PROPOSING applies 
obligatorily in the derivation of passive sentences and ger- 
undive nominal complements like those in 3.82 and 3.83. 

3.82a) The city was destroyed by the enemy. 

b) Abby was acquitted by the jury. , 

c) The offer was refused by John. 

d) Tne book was criticized by John. 

3.83a) the city's being destroyed by the -^neray 

b) Abby's being acquitted by the jury 

c) the offer's being refused by John 

d) the book's being criticized by John 

Either AG£NT-PRiCPOSING or NP~PRSPOSING must apply in 
the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal comple- 
ments. Forms like those in 3.84 and 3-85» in which neither 
rule has applied, are not acceptable. 

3.8ij'a) *Was destroyed the city by the enemy. 

b) ^-Was acquitted Abby by the jury. 

c) *vVas refused the offer by John. 

d) -^-Was criticised the book by John. 

3.85a) "being destroyed the city by the eneaiy 

b) "-being acquitted Abby by the jury 

c) """being refused the offer by John 

d) '""being criticized the book by John 



II ■ ■ i jn ini . i ri il i wmi w — rMiirtr« >i i P ili t' 



72 
On the other hand, in the derivation of derived nominal 
coaiplements, if AG£NT-PRilP03ING does not apply ^ than the 
apolication of NP-PREPOSING is optional for some nominals 
(or underlying verbs), giving the paired acceptable derived 
nominal complements in 3.86a and b and 3.87a and b, and 
blocked for other nominals, so that the derived nominal com- 
plements in 3.87c and d are acceptable, but not those in 
3.86c and d, 

3.86a) the city's destruction by the enemy 

b) Abby's acquittal by the jury 

c) *the" offer's refusal by John 

d) *the book's criticism by John 

3.87a) the destruction of the city by the enemy 

b) the acquittal of Abby by the jury 

c) the refusal of the offer by John 

d) the criticism of the book by John 

If there is no specified agent noun phrase in an under- 
lying structure, then NP -PROPOSING applies obligatorily in 
the derivation of sentences, as in 3-88, and gerundive nominal 
complements, as in 3-89, with the forms in 3-90 and 3. 91 
being unacceptable. 

3.88a) The city was destroyed. 

b) Abby was acquitted. 

c) The offer was refused. 

d) The book was criticized. 

3.39a) the city's being destroyed 

b) Abby's being acquitted 

c) the offer's being refused 

d) the book's being criticised 

3.90a) *Was destroyed the city. 

b) *V/as acquitted Abby. 

c) *Was refused the offer. 

d) *Was criticized the book 

3.91a) *being destroyed the city 

b) ■^being acquitted Abby 

c) *"being refused the offer 

d) *being criticized the book 



73 
Agaiiij v/hen AGi;NT-PR:iP03ING- has not applied in the 
derivati^on of a derived nominal complement^ the application 
of NP-PRSP03ING is optional for some nominals and blocked 
for others, as indicated by the derived nominal complements 
in 3-92 and 3-93- 

3.92a) the city's destruction 

b) Abby's acquittal 

c) *the offer's refusal 

d) *the book's criticism 

3.93a) the destruction of the city 

b) the acquittal of Abby 

c) the refusal of the offer 

d) the criticism of the book 

Finally, if the underlying predicate-initial structure 
contains an intransitive predicate, then NP-PREPOSING- 
applies obligatorily in the derivation of sentences like 
those in 3-9^ and gerundive nominal complements like those 
in 3.95, with the forms in 3.96 and 3*97 being unacceptable 

3.9'^a) The boat sank suddenly. 

b) John arrived. 

c) Mary is kind. 

d) Bill is friendly. 

3.95a) the boat's sinking sudde.fily 

b) John's arriving 

c) Mary's being kind 

d) Bill's being friendly 

3.96a) "^Sank the boat suddenly. 

b) ^Arrived John. 

c) *Is kind Mary. 

d) *Is friendly 3 ill. 

3.97a) ^sinking the boat suddenly 

b) "'^arriving John 

c) *being kind Mary 

d) *being friendly Bill 

Again, the application of NP-PRSPOSING in the deri- 
vation of derived nominal complements corresponding to 



7^ 
intransitive sentences is 'optional, so that the derived nom- 
inal complements in 3.98 and 3.99 are acceptable. 

3,98a) the boat's sudden sinking 

b) John's arrival 

c) Mary's kindness 

d) Bill's friendliness 

3.99a) the sudden sinking of the boat 

b) the arrival of John 

c) the kindness of Mary 

d) the friendliness of Bill 

The application of NP-PREPOSING to simple noun phrases 
shows a simple pattern. If there is no noun phrase in sub- 
ject position when NP-PRSPOSING is applicable (as is the 
case with all intransitive predicates, transitive verbs with 
unspecified agents and transitive verbs with specified 
agents to which AGENT -PREPOSIKG has not applied) , then 
NP~PREPOSING moves the underlying object noun phrase into 
subject position. This movement is obligatory in the deri- 
vation of sentences and gerundive nominal complements and 
optional in the derivation of derived nominal complements 
(with the exception that certain nominals corresponding to 
transitive verbs block the application of the rule in 
derived nominal complements) . 
With Nominal ComDlements 

As I indicated in Chapter One, I have accepted Menzel's 
(1969} analysis of nominal complem.ents as complem.ents of a 
restricted set of head nouns in underlying structures. 
These head nouns are optionally deletable, and in the follow- 
ing examples will be enclosed in parentheses to indicate 
this optionality. 



mg*it f > vv ^'m- 



?5 • . 

Again, I v/ill claim that AGENT-PREPOSING has applied to 
predicate-initial underlying structures to yield the sen- 
tences in 3,100, and their corresponding gerundive nominal 
coiriplements in 3.101 and derived nominal complements in 3.102. 

3.100a; 



b 
c 
d 

3.101a 
b 
c 
d 

3.102a 
b 
c 

d 



John complained about Peter's (action of) 
insulting Tom. 

Jerry testified about Bill's (action of) , 
leaving Peggy. 

Mike attested to (the fact of) Mary's parti- 
cipation in the crime. 

David reported on (the event of) Alice's 
disappearance , 

John's complaining about Peter's (action of) 

insulting Tom 
Jerry's testifying about Bill's (action of) 

leaving Peggy 
Mike's attesting to (the fact of) Mary's 

participation in the crime 
David's reporting on (the event of) Alice's 

disappearance 

John's complaint about Peter's (action of) 

insulting Tom 
Jerry's testimony about Bill's (action of) 

leaving Peggy 
Mike's attestation to (the fact of) Mary's 

participation in the crime 
David's report on (the event of) Alice's 

disappearance 



The verbs complain about , attest to and report on allow 
passivization in my dialect, while testify about does not. 
That is, AGEKT-PREPOSING applies optionally to the first 
three predicates and obligatorily to testify about in the 
derivation of sentences. If AGENT-PREPOSING does not apply, 
then NP-PREPOSING must apply to yield sentences like those 
in 3,103. The expected corresponding gerundive nominal com- 
olements in 3.10^ and derived nominal complements in 3.105 
are not acceptable (cf. Note 12 above). 



5 I T"* 3 «tt ii ia r i> ^ flsa'gaR g'r»~ -»>'Tfci ii» 



wftlWi'ig , MW ft » " ^ 1 I . * ■■ "J j ■• »T •* r 



76 

3.103a) Peter's (action of) insulting Tom was co.ti- 
plained about by Tom. 

b) *3ili's (action of) leaving Peggy v/as testified 

about by Jerry. 

c) (The fact of) Mary's participation in the 

crime was attested to by Mike. 

d) (The event of) Alice's disappearance was 

reported on by David. 

3.10^a) "Peter's (action of) insulting Tom's being 
complained about by John 

b) *Bill's (action of) leaving Peggy's being 

testified about by Jerry 

c) *(the fact of) Mary's participation in the 

crime's being attested to by Mike 

d) """(the event of) Alice's disappearance's being 

reported on by David 

3.105a) ^Peter's (action of) insulting Tom's complaint 
about by John 

b) *3ill's (action of) leaving Peggy's testimony 

about by Jerry 

c) *(the fact of) Mary's participation in the 

crime's attestation to by Mike 

d) *(the event of) Alice's disappearance's report 

on by David 

Failure of both AGENT -PROPOSING- and NP-PREPOSING to 

a-oply in the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal 

complements results in unacceptable forms, as in 3.IO6 and 

3.107, but derived nominal complements to which neither rule 

has applied are acceptable, including one with testimony 

about (from testify about ) . as in 3.108, 

3.106a) *V/as complained about by John Peter's (action 
of) insulting Tom. 

b) "'//as testified about by Jerry Bill's (action 

of) leaving Peggy. 

c) "Was attested to by Mike (the fact of) Mary's 

participation in the crime. 

d) '"'V/as reported on by David (the event of) 

Alice's disappearance. 

3.107a) "being complained about by John Peter's (action 
of) insulting Tom 
b) *being testified about by Jerry Bill's (action 
of) leaving Peggy 



■w f w a ^ tm I Hiiwguniai ■ l if i . r » a^wMgcaw w js a - -^•^**- MiiA«cJ*ni^ri^«.-^^lv^^W 



11 



3.10?c) *being attested to by Mike (the fact of) Mary's 
participation in the crime 
d) ■''•being reported on by David (the event of) 
Alice's disappearance 

3.108a) the complaint by John about Peter's (action 
of) insulting Tom 

b) the testimony by Jerry about Bill's (action 

of) leaving Peggy 

c) the attestation by Mike to (the fact of) 

Mary's participation in the crime 

d) the report by David on (the event of) Alice's 

disappearance 

While the head nouns of the embedded nominal comple- 
ments in the exam.ples above may be deleted, they may not be 
separated from the complements, i.e., by moving the head 
nouns into surface subject position but leaving the comple- 
ments at the right end of the structure (cf. V/ith That- Gom - 
plements , below)* so that all of the examples in 3.109* 
3.110 and 3.111 are unacceptable. 

3,109a) 
. b 



c 

d 

3.110a 

b 
c 

d 

3.111a 
b 
c 
d 



^-^Peter's action was complained about by John of 

insulting Tom, 
^Bill's action v;as testified about^ by Mike of 

leaving Alice. 
*"The fact was attested to by Mike of Mary's 

participation in the crime. 
■'"''The event was reported on by David of Alice's 

disappearance. 

^Peter's action's being complained about by 

John of insulting Tom 
•^Bill's action's being testified about by Jerry 

of leaving Peggy 
*the fact's being attested to by Mike of Mary's 

participation in the crime 
*the event's being reported on by David of 

Alice's disappearance 

"'Peter's action's complaint by John about 
insulting Tom 

"^Bill's action's testimony by Jerry about 
leaving Peggy 

^"■the fact's attestation by Mike to Mary's par- 
ticipation in the crime . 

"the event's report by David on Alice's dis- 
appearance 



78 
Like destroy , acquit , refuse and criticize » the predi- 
cates complain about , attest to and report on also form 
agentless passives. Again, AGSNT-PREPOSING does not apply 
to underlying structures with unspecified agents. Thus, 
NP-PR2P0SING must apply in the derivation of sentences, as 
in 3.112, but does not apply in the derivation of gerundive 
and derived nominal complem.ents, so that the forms in 3.113 
and 3.11^1- are not acceptable. 

3.112a) Peter's (action of) insulting Tom was com- 
plained about. 

b) (The fact of) Mary's participation in the 

crime was attested to. 

c) (The event of) Alice's disappearance v/as 

reported on. 

3,113a) ^Peter's (action of) insulting Tom's being 
complained about 

b) *(the fact of) Mary's participation in the 

crime's being attested to 

c) "^"(the event of) Alice's disappearance's 

being reported on 

3.11^a) ■'^Peter's (action of) insulting Tom's complaint 
about 

b) ^(the fact of) Mary's participation in the 

crime's attestation to 

c) *^(the event of) Alice's disappearance's 

report on 

Failure of both AGENT -PREP SING and NP-PREPOSING to 

apply in the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal 

complements results in unacceptable forms, as in 3.115 and 

3.116, but derived nominal complem.ents to which neither 

rule has applied, as in 3.117* are acceptable. 

3.115a) -"-Was complained about Peter's (action of) 
insulting Tom, 

b) *y/as attested to (the fact of) Mary's partici- 

pation in the crime. 

c) ^v'/as reported on (the event of) Alice's dis- 

appearance. 



79 

3.1l6a) "being complained about Peter's (action of) 
insulting Tom 
b) *baing attested to (the fact of) Mary's parti- 
cipation in the crime 
, c) '^ being reported on (the event of) Alice's 
disappearance 

3.117a) the complaint about Peter's (action of) 
insulting Tom 

b) the attestation to (the fact of) Mary's 

participation in the crime 

c) the" report on (the event of) Alice's dis- 

appearance 

Again J while the head nouns of the embedded nomina.1 com- 
plements in the examples above may be deleted, they may not 
be separated from the complem.ents , so that all the examples 
in 3.118, 3.119 and 3-120 are unacceptable. 

3.118a) ^""Peter's action v;as complained about of 
insulting Tom. 

b) "^-The fact was attested to of Mary's partici- 

pation in the crime. 

c) *The event was reported on of Alice's dis- 

appearance. 

3.119a) ^Teter's action's being complained about of 
insulting Tom 

b) "the fact's being attested to of Mary's parti- 

cipation in the crime 

c) *the event's being reported on of Alice's 

disappearance 

3.120a) "Peter's action's complaint about insulting 
Tom 

b) *th8 fact's attestation to Mary's participa- 

tion in the crime 

c) --^the event's report on Alice's disappearance 

If the underlying predicate-initial structure contains 
an intransitive predicate, then NP-PRi;POSING applies obliga- 
torily in the derivation of sentences, as in 3-121, but is 
blocked from applying in the derivation of nominal com.ple- 
ments, so that the forms in 3-122 and 3-123 are unacceptable. 






80 

3.121a) (The fact of) John's leaving so early was 
unexpected. 

b) Bill's (action of) refusing the offer is 

unfortunate. 

c) (The event of) Dick's resi,gnation is likely. 

d) (The fact of) Jimmy's testimony v/as reaiarkable. 

3.122a) "(the fact of) John's leaving so early's being 
unexoected 

b) ^'Bill's taction of) refusing the offer's being 

unfortunate 

c) *( the event of) Dick's resignation's being 

likely 

d) *(the fact of) Jimmy's testimony's being 

remarkable 

3.123a) *(the fact of) John's leaving so early's 
unexpectedness 

b) ^-Bill's (action of) refusing the offer's 

unfortunateness 

c) ^"(the event of) Dick's resignation's likelihood 

d) *(the fact of) Jimmy's testimony's remarkableness 

Failure of both AG.SNT"PR£P03IKG and NP~PRBPOSING to 

apply in the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal 

complements results in unacceptable forms, as in 3-12^ and 

3,125, but derived nominal complements to whicii neither rule 

has applied, as in 3>126, are acceptable. 

3,12^i-a) *Was unexpected (the fact of) John's leaving 
so early. 

b) *V/as unfortunate Bill's (action of) refusing 

the offer 

c) *Is likely (the event of) Dick's resignation. 

d) ^^^rfas remarkable (the fact of) Jimmy's testimony. 

3.125a) *being unexpected (the fact of) John's leaving 
so early 

b) *being unfortunate Bill's (action of) refusing 

the offer 

c) -"-being likely (the event of) Dick's resignation 

d) -^being remarkable (the fact of) Jimmy's testimony 

3.126a) the unexpectedness of (the fact of) John's 
leaving so early 

b) the unforunateness of Bill's (action of) 

refusing the offer 

c) the likelihood of (the event of) Dick's 

resignation 

d) the remarkableness of (the fact of) Jimmy's 

testimony 



81 
Again, while the head nouns of the embedded nominal con- 
plements in the examples above may be deleted, they may not 
be separated from the complements, so that all the examples 
in 3.127, 3.128 and 3.129 are unacceptable. 

3,127a) *The fact was unexpected of John's leaving so 
early. . 

b) *Bill's action was unfortunate of refusing xhe 

offer. 

c) ^'The event was likely of Dick's resignation. 

d) *The fact was remarkable of Jimmy's testimony. 

3.128a) *the fact's being unexpected of John's leaving 
so early 

b) ^Bill's action's being unfortunate of refusing 

the offer 

c) ^nhe event's being likely of Dick's resignation 

d) *the fact's being remarkable of Jimmy's 

testimony 

3.129a) *the fact's unexpectedness of John's leaving 
so early 

b) ^-Bill's action's unfortunateness of refusing 

the offer 

c) ^-the event's likelihood of Dick's resignation 

d) *the fact's rem.arkableness of Jimmy's 

testimony 

Ik- 

The examples above show that either AGENT -PRSPOSING or 
NP-PREPCSING must apply in the derivation of sentences with 
embedded nominal complements, that the only acceptable ger- 
undive nominal complements v/ith embedded nominal complements 
are those to which AGENT -PREPOSING has applied, and that 
derived nominal complements with embedded nominal com.ple- 
ments to which AGENT -PREPOSING has applied, as well as 
derived nominal complements with embedded nominal comple- 
ments to which neither AGENT-PREPOSING nor NP-PREPOSING has 
applied, are acceptable. No other possibilities are accep- 
table, not is any case in which the head noun is separated 
from the embedded nominal complements. 



—0<«a«4-^J W '*WI ■ *** !*■ '' ^ »i\ ' Sf '^ * M prm uf^ ^ 



82 ■ . . ■ 

// i th That-GofflDlejnants 

That -complements also appear to have head nouns in 
under'lying structure (cf. Menzel, 1969)- Like the head 
nouns of nominal complements, these head nouns are deletable. 
The optional presence of head nouns in surface structure 
will again be indicated by the use of parentheses. 

As before, I v^ill claim that AG3NT-PRiiP0SINC- has applied 
to predicate-initial underlying structures to yield the sen- 
tences in 3.130, and their corresponding gerundive nominal 
complements in 3.131 and derived nominal complements in 3. 132. 

3.150a) Tom reported (the fact) that the account was 
overdrawn. 

b) Jerry revealed (the fact) that Alice was Sxmart. 

c) Mary denied (the claim) that Peggy v.'as 

pregnant. 

3.131a) Tom's reporting (the fact) that the account 

was overdrav/n 
b) Jerry's revealing (the fact) that Alice was 

smart 
o) Mary's denying (the claim) that Peggy was 

pregnant 

3,132a) Tom's report (of the fact) that the account 
was overdrav^n 

b) Jerry's revelation (of the fact) that Alice. 

v/as smart 

c) Mary's denial (of the claim) that Peggy was 

pregnant 

If A3ENT-PRSP0SING does not apply, then NP-PPvPJPOSING 
applies obligatorily in the derivation of sentences. How- 
ever, NF~PRiP03ING applies in two ways. Either the head 
noun and the that-complement are preposed as a unit, as has 
happened in the derivation of the sentences in 3"133» or 
only the head noun is preposed, in which case the sentences 
in 3.13^^ result if the head noun is retained in surface 



. ■ ■ 83 

structure, and the sentences in 3.135 result if the head 

noun is deleted. 

3.133a) (The fact) that the account was overdrawn was 
reported by Tom. 

b) (The fact) that Alice was smart v/as revealed 

by Jerry. 

c) (The claim) that Peggy was pregnant was denied 

by Mary. 

3.13^3-) The fact was reported by Tom that the account 
was overdravm. 

b) The fact was revealed by Jerry that Alice was 

smart . 

c) The claim was denied by Mary that Peggy was 

pregnant. 

3.135a) It was reported by Tom that the account was 
overdravm. 

b) It v/as revealed by Jerry that Alice was smart. 

c) It was denied by Mary that Peggy was pregnant. 

The sentences in 3.133 are passive. Sentences like 
those in 3.13^ have been described as being derived by the 
rule of EXTRAPOSITION FROM NP (of which I will have more to 
say belov;) , The sentences in 3.135 are extraposed (i.e., 
Supposedly derived by IT-EXTRAPOSITION). 

In no case in which head nouns are retained in surface 

structure are both the head noun and the t hat -complement to 

the right of the predicate in sentences. Thus, there are no 

acceptable sentences like those in 3.136. 

3.136a) *It v/as reported by Tom the fact that the 
account was overdrawn. 

b) *It was revealed by Jerry the fact that Alice 

was smart . 

c) **It was denied by Mary the claim that Peggy 

was pregnant. 

The sentences in 3.124 do not have any acceptable cor- 
responding gerundive or derived nominal complements, the 
forms in 3.137 and 3.138 all being unacceptable. 



i-T« m i i i — --<- ^ iii ' II i» ~ iii ' ii >~ ■ ■ 'It — i rm i n ii f— -ii i f->n rii T~ iw w-r ti r -T inifVnn — I'-j-— — 



8k 

3.137a) "^-(the fact) that the account was overdrawn 's 
"being reported by Tom 

b) *(the fact) that Alice was smart's being 

revealed by Jerry 

c) *(the claim) that Peggy was pregnant 's being 

denied by ivlary 

3.138a) '"'(the fact) that the account was overdrav/n*s 
report by Tom 

b) *(the fact) that Alice was smart's revelation 

by Jerry 

c) *(the claim.) that Peggy was pregnant 's denial 

by Mary 

The sentences in 3.134- do not have any acceptable cor- 
responding gerundive or derived nominal complements, the 
forms in 3.139 and 3.14-0 all being unacceptable. 

3.139a) *the fact's being reported by Tom that the 
account v;as overdrav;n 

b) *the fact's being revealed by Jerry that Alice 

v/as smart 

c) ■^the claim's denial by Mary that Peggy v/as 

pregnant 

3.14-Oa) *the fact's report by Tom that the account was 
overdrav/n 

b) *the fact's revelation by Jerry that Alice v;as 

smart 

c) -^the claim's denial by f/lary that Peggy was 

pregnant 

The sentences in 3.135 have the acceptable corresponding 
gerundive nominal complements in 3.14-1 and derived nominal 
complements in 3.i4-2. 

3.14-la) its being reported by Tom that the account 
v/as overdrawn 

b) its being revealed by Jerry that Alice was 

smart 

c) it being denied by Mary that Peggy was 

pregnant 

3.l42a) the report by Tom that the account was over- 
drav/n 

b) the revelation by Jerry that Alice was smart 

c) the denial by Mary that Peggy was pregnant 



8' 



^5 

Finally, although the sentences in 3.136, and their 

expected corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.1^3» 

are all unacceptable, the derived nominal complements in 

3.1ij'^, with the same linear order as the forms in 3.136 and 

3.143, are acceptahle. 

3.l43a) *its being reported by Tom the fact that the ■ 
account was overdrawn 

b) *its being revealed by Jerry the fact that 

Alice was smart 

c) *its being denied by Mary the claim that Peggy 

was pregnant 

S.l^ii-a) the report by Tom of the fact that the account 
was overdrawn 

b) the revelation by Jerry of the fact that 

Alice v/as smart 

c) the denial by Mary of the claim that Peggy 

was pregnant 

By referring to the examples given for simple noun 
phrases and nominal complements, the reader should be able 
to convince himself that the patterns of acceptability 
exhibited for the examples with transitive predicates and 
specified agents given immediately above also hold for forms 
with transitive predicates and unspecified agents and for 
forms with intransitive predicates. 

If we understand NP-PREPOSING to apply either to the 
head noun alone or to the head noun plus its that -comple- 
ment, we see that the rule has the same conditions on appli- 
cation to that-complements that it has to nominal com.ple- 
mentsi it applies optionally in the derivation of sentences, 
and not at all in the derivation of derived nominal comple- 
ments. Acceptable gerundive nominal complements occur only 
if the head noun is deleted. 



86 
EXT RAPOSITION FROM NP 

Ross (1967) proposed a rule, which he called iiXTRAPOSI- 
TION FROM NP, to account for the relationship of sentences 
like those in 3-1^5 to sentences like those in 3.1^^6. 

3-1^5a) A gun which I had cleaned went off. 

b) He let the cats which were meowing out. 

c) He expected someone who I was acquainted with 

to show up. 

3'1^6a) A gun v/ent off which I had cleaned. 

b) He let the cats out which were meowing. 

c) He expected someone to show up who I was 

acquainted with. 

Ross stated the rule in the form given in 3.1^7. 
Although Ross does not state the rule in the context of the 
cycle, the restrictions he gives on the forms of the varia- 
ble y indicate that the rule is cyclic. 

3.147 EXTRAPOSITION FROM NP 

^^ -^.1 J "-^ OPT - 

123 =^ 1, 0, 3+2 

EXTRAPOSITION FROM NP is not needed to account for the 
relationship of the sentences in 3- 1^5 to the sentences in 
3-146 if Np-PREPOSING is stated to apply to such noun-rela- 
tive clause combinations in the same manner as with that -com- 
plements and their head nouns. Thus, NP-PREPOSING would 



wCjiiii'TBT.iSiJittniifrrr m 1 ii I'l »mw,M 



'ig^iTiaBirii'iiriiirt .n 1 -iTTni-r n 






^j^my^-r-mf^ Vf i M j -ai i i ii 'w J '!" 



87 
have preposed both the head noun and its relative clause in 
the sentences in 3.1^5} while it would have preposed only 
the head noun in the sentences in 3.146. The examples in 
3.1^5 and 3,146 require a modification of the rule to 
allow preposing across the separable particle of a verb-par- 
ticle predicate. This would, however, eliminate any need 
for a rule to postpose such separable particles across the 
ob,iGct of the verb. 
NP -PREPOSING and Pied Piping 

. In light of the behavior of NP-PRSPOSING with that-com- 
plements and relative clauses, I v/ill modify the rule so that 
it applies to the head noun of the structures in question, 
and allow the Pied Piping convention to account for. the 
optional preposing of the jthat- complements and relative 
clauses with the head nouns. The Pied Piping convention is 
proposed by Ross (196?) to handle just such ph&nomena. The 
Pied Piping convention is as follows s 

The P i ed Piping Convention 

Any transformation which is stated in such a way as, to 
effect the reordering of some specified node NP , where 
this nods is preceded and followed by variables in the 
structural index of the rule, may apply to this NP or 
to any non-coordinate NP which dominates it, as long 
as there are no occurrences of any coordinate node, nor 
the node S, on the branch connecting the higher node 
and the specified node. 

Ross further mentions that Pied Piping is obligatory in 

some contexts. The distributional facts discussed above are 

accounted for if NP-PRSPOSING applies to head nouns, with 

Pied Piping being obligatory for nominal complements and 

optional for that -complements (and relative clauses). 



Condit ions on Application • , ■ ■ 

The conditions on the application of MP-PRSPOSING that 
I have discussed above fall along two parameters. The con- 
textual parameter opposes sentences and gerundive nominal 
complements to derived nominal complements. The noun phrase 
parameter opposes simple noun phrases to head nouns of com- 
plements. The interaction of these parameters is indicated 
in the chart in 3.1^8, 

3.148 Conditions on the Application of NP-PREPOSING 
(AGENT-PRSPOSING has not applied) 

in sentences and in derived nomi- 
gerundive nomi- nal complements 
. nal complements 

simple noun obligatory optional* 
phrases 

head nouns of obligatory blocked 
complements 

^blocked for specific predicates 

In Chapter Four I will argue that when NP-PRSPOSING 

applies in the derivation of gerundive nom.inal complements, 

they are still sentences. Thus, NP~PREPOSING is obligatory 

when it applies v/ithin structures dominated by an S, On the 

other hand J I will argue that v;hen NP-PREPOSING applies in 

the derivation of derived nominal complements s they are 

already norainalized. Thus, NP-PREPOSING is optional or 

blocked when it applies within structures dominated by an 

NP. I will have more to say about hov/ this distinction is 

achieved in Chapter Four. 



R4mi<i«««inAiTiiii]li*«4'wjS"*i s 



89 . 

Eoionds ' P03SESSIV3 Transformation 

Emends (I969! 78-81) argues that NP-PREPOSING does not 

apply in the derivation of "passive" derived nominal comple- 

ments such as those in 3'1^9' 

3-1^9a) the city's destruction by the enemy 
b) Abby's acquittal by the j^ry 

Ke argues that the possessive noun phrases the city's 

and Abby's are preposed by a rule he calls the POSSSSSIVS 

Transformation. First he notes that NP-PREPOSING may pre- 

pose a noun phrase over a verb-particle predicate, as in 

3.150, but claims that the POSSESSIVE Transformation never 

does* so that forms like that in 3 '151 are blocked. 

3.150) The strike was refered to briefly in the report. 

3.151) *the strike's brief reference to in the report 
Since many derived nominals idiosyncratically block 

preposing of object noun phrases, the fact that verbs with 
lexical prepositions also block preposing is v/eak evidence 
for the separate existence of the POSSESSIVE Transformation. 

A second reason Smonds gives for requiring as a sepa- 
rate rule the POSSESSIVE Transformation is that NT -PREPOSING 
is associated with the occurrence of the passive morpheme 
be -en , v/hich never appears in "passive" derived nominal com- 
plements. As was m^entioned in Chapter Tv/o, derived nominal 
complements never have any auxiliaries. All that is needed 
is a simple rule or principle that insures that no auxiliar- 
ies are present in the surface structures of derived nominal 



90 

complements. If it is assumed that auxiliaries are present 
in deeply underlying structures, then they are deleted at 
some point in the derivation of derived nominal complements. 
If it is assumed that auxiliaries are inserted, then the 
insertion rules are blocked from applying to derived nominal 
complements. Thus, there vdll be no passive morpheme be -en 
in "passive" derived nominal complements. 

A third reason cited by Emonds is more complex. He 
points out that the POSSESSIVE Transformation apparently can 
apply to noun phrases other than the one immediately follov/- 
ing the derived nominal, whereas NP-PRSPOSING (in sentences 
and gerundive nominal complements) applies only to noun 
phrases which immediately follow the predicate (or gerundive 
nominal). That is, he claims that the P0SSES3I"'/E Transforma- 
tion can apply to noun phrases which are not objects of the 
predicate. He cites the occurrence of prepositionless time 
adverbials preceding the derived nominal, as in 3 '152, which, 
according to Emonds, represent derivations from the struc- 
tures underl3/ing the derived nominal complements in 3-153- 

3.152a) last v;eek*s discussion of novels by the 
librarian 
b) this morning's speech to the nation by the 
president 

3.153a) the discussion of novels by the librarian 
last week 
b) the speech to the nation by the president 
this m.orning 



9i 

The application of NP-PKriPOSIP^'a in this v/ay is not pos- 
sible in sentences, so that we find the sentences in 3-15^» 
but the sentences in 3* 1.55 are not acceptable. 

3.15^a) The librarian discussed novels last week. 

b) The president spoke to the nation this morning. 

3 '155a) *Last week was discussed novels by the 
librarian, 
b) *This morning was spoken to the nation by the 
president. 

But it cannot be the POSSiiSSIVii Transformation which 

has moved the prepositionless time adverbials to a position 

preceding the derived nominals in 3-152, since the forms in 

3.156 are not acceptable, indicating that the POSSjilSSiV^i' 

Transformation (or NP-PRiPOSlNG) is blocked for discussion 

and speech in derived nominal complements. 

3.156a) ^novel's discussion by the librarian last week 
b) *the nation's speech by the president this 
morning 

All time adverbials are subject to fronting in sen- 
tences, as in 3- 157' 

3.15?a) Last week the librarian discussed novels. 

b) This morning the president spoke to the nation. 

The application of a rule of ADVERB -FRONTING to the 
structures underlying the derived nominal complements in 
3-153 (vfith subsequent addition of the suffix '3) will pro- 
duce the derived nominal complements in 3-152. 

Other time adverbials are also subject to ADVERB-FRONT- 
ING, but do not form determiners of derived nominals. The 
time adverbials with prepositions, hov/ever, are subject to 
deletion of the preposition, and then behave just like other 



MrXiW M P'« u* »« * « ''1 na^BW^»^»>»^ ; * Attfm^l^ 



92 
prepositionless time adverbials. Time adverbials v/ith the 
-ly suffix form pre-nominal adjectives j^st like other - ly 
adverbs in derived nominal complements, as v;as discussed in 
Chapter Two. Thus, the sentences in 3.158 have the corres- 
ponding derived nomiinal complements in 3.159. 

■3.158a-) Recently the librarian discussed novels. 
b) Daily the president speaks to the nation. 

3,159a) the librarian's recent discussion of novels 
b) the president *s daily speech to the nation 

Emonds choice of the name POSSESSIVE for the rule v;hich 
proposes objects in derived nominal complements is unfortun- 
ate. Last v/eek and this mo rning in 3.152 were preposed by 
ADVERB-FRONTING, and the librarian and the president in 
3.159 were preposed by AGENT-PREPOSING, yet they also form 
possessive determiners. The formation of a possessive is 
obviously distinct from any preposing rule, and operates on 
v/hatever noun phrase is in pre-nominal position at some late 
point in the cycle. 

The last reason Emonds cites for distinguishing the POS- 
SESSIVE Transformation from NP-PREPOSING is that the condi- 
tions for preposing are not the same in derived nominal com- 
plements as they are in sentences and gerundive nominal cora- 
plem.ents, as v;as indicated in 3.1^8. Since those conditions 
do differ, there seems to be som.a merit in the proposal for 
tv.'o rules. The tv/o rules v/ould have so much in common, how- 
ever, that to say that they are unrelated would miss signifi- 
cant generalizations. I therefore reject Emonds' claim, and 
retaiin my earlier analysis of one rule of NP-PREPOSING with 



■i : fc i K P ^TTl , i " gn p M ^^ J i%«i— :i ^» c wiii u ■ q.i « ^»^fi^5)n»«t>in>i>>tf}w> 1 



■ 93 ' 
conditions on application in derived nominal complements 
which differ from those in sentences and gerundive nominal 
complements. 
Summary 

I have argued in this section that the subjects of sen- 
tences with intransitive verbs and the derived subjects of 
passive sentences and their corresponding nominal comple- 
ments are derived by the rule of NP-PREPOSING. I have fur- 
ther argued that extraposed sentences and derived nominal 
complements with nominal-initial order have resulted from 
the failure of either AGENT -PREPOSING or NP-PREPOSING to 
apply in their derivations. I have also argued that NP-PRE- 
POSING may apply to structures consisting of a noun (phrase) 
plus an embedded sentence, with the embedded sentence becom- 
ing a nominal complement, a that- complement, or a relative 
clause. This thus eliminates any need for the rules of 
IT-EXTRAPOSITION and EXTRAPOSITION FROM NP. Finally, I 
have examined, and rejected, argum.ents presented by Emonds 
in support of his claim that NP-PREPOSING does not apply in 
the derivation of derived nominal complements, 

Dumm.y Subject Insertion 

Nev/meyer (1971) notes that there are no derived nominal 
complements with there as possessive noun determiner. The 
sentences in 3.I60 have the corresponding gerundive nominal 
complements in 3.I6I, but there are no acceptable derived 
nominal complements corresponding to the sentences in 3.I60, 
the form.s in 3.I62 being unacceptable. 



3.l60a) There appeared, to be no hope, 

b) There seemed to be a disturbance. 

c) There happened to be some wine in the bottle. 

3.l6la) there appearing to be no hope 

b) there seeming to be a disturbance 

c) there happening to be some wine in the bottle 

17 

3.l62ai) ^there's appearance to be no hope 

ii) ^there's appearance of being no hope 
bi) *there's semblance to be a disturbance 

ii) ^there's semblance of being a disturbance 
ci) *there's happening to be some wine in the 
bottle 
ii) ^there's happening of being some wine in the 
bottle 

The forms in 3.162 do not provide any evidence of the 
relation between THERE-INSERTION and DERIVED NOMINALIZATION , 
hovjever, as the sentences in 3 .160 have been derived by RAIS- 
ING-TO-SUBJECT from the structures underlying the sentences 
in 3.163$ which have the corresponding gerundive nominal com- 
plements in 3.16^- and derived nominal complements in 3.I65. 

3.163a) It appeared that there was no hope. 

b) It seemed that there v;as a distuiLbance. 

c) It happened that there was some wine in the 

bottle. 

3.l6^a) it(s) appearing that there v/as no hope 

b) it(s) seeming that there was a disturbance 

c) it(s) happening that there was some wine in 

the bottle 

3.1652.) the appearance that there was no hope 

b) ?the semblance that there was a disturbance 

c) the happenstance that there was some wine in 

the bottle 

If v/e take the em.bedded that -complements of the sen- 
tences in 3. 163 J we have sentences in which there has not 
Deen raised from an embedded sentence, as in 3.I66. These 
sentences have the corresponding gerundive nominal comple- 
ments in 3.16?. It would seem that the derived nominal 



■ I iijn 11^ -■■^rnirrTi^- ^gBi.Jj*ae aj-g ld*dBIU»w^t.ajv^i»Wn>*Wa< T i r-— M i. r -*tfjfc. ic* * "i. a^iWW O '^P ww - f - . m bj ^ ' i uj ^p ii mj w . i i» w j< i i «Si ei a iin? a ft i y*'^ < at »irW8ig w^:i i'^ 'wiWIiWi 



95 
complements corresponding to the sentences in 3.I66 are the 
simple noun phrases in 3.I68. 

3.166a) There was no hope, 

b) There was a disturbance, 

c) There was some wine in the bottle, 

3.167a) there being no hope 

b) there being a disturbance 

c) there being some wine in the bottle 

3.168a) no hope 

b) a disturbance 

c) some wine in the bottle 

The sentences in 3.166 all have the surface structure 
there -G opula-Predicat e Nominal. THSRE- INSERTION is presumed 
to have applied in each sentence because no noun phrase was 
left in subject position. In an analysis assuming underly- 
ing SVO order, this requires the postposing of the subject 
v/ith certain intransitive verbs. In an analysis assuming 
predicate-initial order, THERE - INSERT ION applies in case no 
other rule has moved a noun phrase into subject" position. 

In the section on IT-EXTRAPOSITION above I indicated 
that _it is inserted in subject position if no noun phrase or 
complement is moved into subject position. I will claim 
here that _it is the surrogate subject if the predicate has a 
sentential complement, or if the predicate is one v/hich 
takes no arguments (i.e,, weather verbs such as rain , etc.), 
and that there is the surrogate subject if the predicate 
has at least one argument, but no sentential complement. 

The derived nominal complements I have given in 3.I68 
are really just the noun phrases which occur as predicate 
nominals in the sentences in 3.I66. There are variants of 



, ;»r*«M Tj» m^m.^ MPm-fBa i > — iim^ 



96 , . ■ 
those sentences, as in 3.169, to which THBRfi-INSERTION has 
not applied. These sentences have the corresponding gerund- 
ive nominal complements in 3.170 and derived nominal comple- 
ments in 3,171. The forms in 3.172, with the same v/ord 
order as the sentences in 3.l69j are not acceptable. 



3.169a 
b 
c 

3.170a 
b 
c 

3.171a 
b 
c 



No hope existed. 

A disturbance occurred. 

Some wine was present in the bottle, 

no hope('s) existing 

a disturbance (' s) occurring 

som.e wine('s) being present in the bottle 

the existance of no hope 

the occurrence of a disturbance 

the Tjresence of some wine in the bottle 



3,172a) *no hope's existance 

b) *a disturbance's occurrence 
ci) *some wine in the bottle's presence 
ii) *some wine's presence in the bottle 

Certain points emerge with these examples. The occur- 
rences of be in the sentences in 3,l66 are not really the 
copula, but rather an alternate representation of the exis- 
tential verbs in 3.I69. The only acceptable derived nominal 
complements corresponding to the sentences in 3.169 show pre- 
dicate-initial order. For this set of predicates s then, 
MP-PREP03ING seems to apply optionally in sentences, and not 
at all in derived nominal complements. This pattern is paral- 
lel to the application of the rule with an embedded that -com- 
plement . 

THERE-INSERTION and IT-INSERTION are both blocked from 
applying to derived nominal complements, and are both gov- 
erned by very similar conditions. If no noun phrase precedes 



~~-r ri ' - /'«i'-r~^"Ti 



97 
the predicate because NP-PR.iiPOSII\'G has failed to apply, a 
surrogate subject must be supplied. This is done by 
THER^-INSiRTICN if the predicate belongs to the class of 
existential predicates 5 and by IT-IiM3.i£RTI0N if the predicate 
has a sentential complement, or is a weather predicate. In 
a derived nominal complement, no surrogate subject is sup- 
plied by the grammar. 

i:;QUI~NP>DSLr:TION 

In this section I will discuss another problem which is 
not raised by Chomsky (1970)! the lack of derived nominal 
complements in which EQUI-NP -DELETION has applied. 

Stockwell et al. ( 1973' 553ff • ) present an analysis 
which has EQUI-NP-DSLETION apply when there is an Agent (of 
the higher sentence) -subject (of the erabedded sentence) iden- 
tity or a Dative (of the higher sentence) -subject (of the 

embedded sentence) identity, with the Dative-su-bject condi- 

19 
tion taking precedence over the Agent-subject condition. ^ 

Stockwell et al. state that require takes an optional Dative 
noun phrase vdth a sentential complement, with the applica- 
tion of iQiJI-NP -DELETION being optional if a Dative noun 
phrase is present and identical to the subject of the embed- 
ded sentence; that command takes an optional Dative noun 
phrase with the application of EQUI-NP -DELETION being obli- 
gatory if a Dative noun phrase is present and identical to 
the subject of the embedded sentence? and that force takes 
an obligatory Dative noun phrase with obligatory application 
of EQUI-NP -DELETION if the Dative noun phrase is identical 



1 1 r r i ^ n — ii Wr i — if — i ff l Ti 



98 
to the subject of the embedded sentence. The case of 
require v/lthout a Dative noun phrase is represented by 
3.173a, require v/ith a Dative noun phrase but without appli- 
cation of EQUI-NP-DSLETION by 3.1?3b, require with a Dative 
noun phrase and application of SQUI-NP-DELETION by 3. 173c ? 
comraand without a Dative noun phrase by 3.173d, command with 
a Dative noun phrase by 3.173e, and force by 3.173f. The 
failure of EQUI-NP-DELETION to apply for v/hatever reason pro- 
duces that- complements from the embedded sentences, as in 
3.173a» "b and d. The sentences in 3.173 have corresponding 
gerundive nominal complements, as in 3.17^, but only 3.173a, 
d and e have acceptable corresponding derived nominal comple- 
ments, as indicated by the forms in 3.175. 

3.173a) I require that you solve the problem. 

b) I require of you that you solve the problem. 

c) I require you to solve the problem, 

d) I commanded that he solve the problem, 
' e) I commanded him to solve the prob-lem, 

f) I forced him to solve the problem. 

3.17^a) my requiring that you solve the problem 

b) my requiring of you that you solve the problem 

c) my requiring you to solve the problem 

d) my commanding that he solve the problem 

e) my commanding him to solve the problem 

f) my forcing him to solve the problem 

3.175a) my requirement that you solve the problem 

b) *my requirement of you that you solve the problem 

c) ^my requirement of you to solve the problem. 

d) my command that he solve the problem 

e) my comjnand to him to solve the problem 

f) *my forcing of him to solve the problem 

There are no derived nominal complements corresponding 
to sentences v;ith require v/hich have a Dative noun phrase 
whether or not EQUI-MP-DELETION has applied to the sentence. 



1 I m i .'.'T ■ 1 1 - - rr; T iiiil'r — ir,-i «-| 1 __ n rr , nT— irm tl^ ■-TCi:n — -II — -i nr'r ■ ■ i ir— - i tri ■ |-j ■»! [> -t— i:ri i«' "" - " - ».»■« .-•f'l^mm^ m,i ^ • w w ^w n "n i i i i r S/lft*mS^^ H>- t^aWP^gih»- 



99 
I have no explanation for this fact other than the sugges- 
tion that some unknovm rule has applied in the derivation of 
the sentences in 3.173b and c which has not applied in the 
derivation of the sentence in 3.173a, and that this unknown . 
rules blocks DERIVED NOMINALIZATION . On the other hand, 
there are derived nominal complements corresponding to sen- 
tences with corsmand without regard to whether the sentences 
have undergone EQUI-NP -DELETION, I will show below that 
DERIVED NOMINALIZATION blocks the application of EQUI-NP -DE- 
LETION for only some underlying predicates, so that there is 
nothing troublesome about its failure to do so for command . 
That the unacceptability of 3.175i is linked to the applica- 
tion of EQUI-NP -DELETION is shown by the acceptability of 
m y forcing of the issue corresponding to I forced the issue . 
which has not undergone EQUI-NP -DELETION. Thus, it is not 
the case that DERIVED NOMINALIZATION is blocked idiosyncrati- 
cally for force . The examples in 3-175 do not provide clear 
evidence on the interaction of EQUI-NP -DELETION and DERIVED 
NOMINALIZATION. To find such evidence we must turn to the 
Agent-subject condition on EQUI-NP -DELETION. 

The sentences in 3-176 result from the deletion of the 
subject of the em.bedded sentence when it is identical to the 
Agent noun phrase of the next higher sentence. The conges- 
ponding gerundive nominal complements are given in 3.177- 
There are no acceptable corresponding derived nominal com- 
plements, the expected forms in 3-178 being unacceptable. 



100 

3.1703.) John condescended to speak to Mary. 

b) Mike quickly learned to analyze sentences. 

c) Bill expected to leave early. 

3.177a) John's condscending to speak to Mary 

b) Mike's quickly learning to analyze sentences 

c) Bill's expecting to leave early 

3.178a) ^John's condescension to speak to Mary 

b) *Mike's quick learning to analyze sentences 

c) -^Bill's expectation to leave early 

That the unacceptability of the forms in 3.178 is con- 
nected with the application of EQUI-NP-DELETION is indicated 
by the fact that the sentences in 3.179f with the same basic 
predicates as in 3.176, have the corresponding gerundive 
nominal compleir.ents in 3.180 and derived nominal complements 

in 3.181. 

3.179a) John was condescending tov/ards Mary. 

b) Mike quickly learned the multiplication tables. 

c) Bill expected that Alice would leave, 

3.l80a) John's being condescending towards Alice 

b) Mike's quickly learning the multiplication 

tables 

c) Bill's expecting that Alice would leave 

3. 181a) John's condescension towards Mary 

b) Mike's quick learning of the multiplication 

tables 

c) Bill's expectation that Alice would leave 

Other Dredicates allow the application of EQUI-NP-DELE- 
TION in the derivation of derived nominal complements. The 
sentences in 3.182, which have undergone EQUI-NP-DELETION in 
their derivations, have the corresponding gerundive nominal 
complements in 3.I83 and derived nominal complements in 3.184-. 

3,l82a) John intended to leave early. 

b) Mike desired to leave early. 

c) Bill refused to leave early. 

d) Jerry attempted to leave early. 



101 

■ 3.183a) John's intending to leave early 

b) Mike's desiring to leave early 

c) Bill's refusing to leave early 

d) Jerry's attempting to leave early 

3.18'^a) John's intention to leave early 

b) Mike's desire to leave early 

c) Bill's refusal to leave early 

d) Jerry's attempt to leave early 

It appears from these examples that EQUI-NP-DELETION, 
like NP-PREPOSING, can apply to some derived nominal comple- 
ments, but not to others. The applicability of EQUI-NP -DELE- 
TION seems to be governed by a feature on the predicate. 
That the conditions on applicability may be more compli- 
cated is indicated by the fact that while 3.178c, ^ Bill's 
expectation to l eave early » seems hopelessly bads the 
related form, Bill's expectation of an early departure , is 
much better. A further point is that in the derived nominal 
complements in 3.18^}', all of the derived nominals except 
refusal will also take embedded gerundive or deprived nominal 
com.plemsnts to which EQUI-NP-DELETION has applied, as in 

3.185. 

3.185a) John's intention of leaving early 

b) Mike's desire for leaving early/an early 

departure 

c) ^Bill's refusal of leaving early/an early 

departure 

d) Jerry's attempt at leaving early/an early 

departure 

These facts indicate a difference in the application of 
SQUI-NP -DELETION to derived nominal complements with embedded 
infinitival com.plements and to those with em.bedded gerundive 
or derived nominal complements. I will have more to say 
about that difference in Chapter Four, 



^m f» 0r 1*^ III jaaj Bfc L 



102 ■ . 

Newmeyer (1971) points out that sentences which have 
undergone DATIVi-MOVxHvliijNT' in their derivations do not have 
corresponding derived nominal cooiplements . The sentences 
in 3'lS6, which have undergone DATIVii-IViOVEMiiNT, have the cor- 
responding gerundive nominal compleinents in 3 '18?, but the 
expected corresponding derived nominal complements in 3-188 
are not acceptable. 

3.lS6a) John gave Mary the book. 

b) Bill told Alice the story. 

c) Jane bought Jim a soda. 

3'l87a) John's giving Mary the book 

b) Bill's telling Alice the story 

c) Jane's buying Jim a soda 

3.188a} ^John's gift to Mary of the book 

b) ^Bill's telling to Alice of the story 

c) ""'Jane's buying for Jim of a soda 

The sentences in 3-189. v/hich have not undergone DAT- 
I'V'i; -MOVEMENT, have the . corresponding gerundive '-nominal comple- 
ments in 3-190 and derived nominal complements in 3-191' 
The nominal-initial derived nominal complements correspond- 
ing to this set of sentences are given in 3>192. 

3'lS9a) John gave the book to Mary. 

b) Bill told the story to Alice. 

c) Jane bought a soda for Jim. 

3.190a) John's giving the book to Mary 

b) Bill's telling the story to Alice 

c) Jane's buying a soda for Jim 

3- 191a) John's gift of the book to Mary 

b) Bill's telling of the story to Alice 

c) Jane's buying of a soda for Jim , • 

3.192a) the gift of the book to Mary by John 

b) the telling of the story to Alice by Bill 

c) the buying of a soda for Jim by Jane 



103 
Psychological Predicates 
Chomsky presents a set of examples which show a unique 
pattern of acceptability for derived nominal complenients. 
The sentences in 3.193 have the corresponding gerundive nom- 
inal complements in 3.19^. but only 3.193t) has an acceptable 
corresponding derived nominal complement in 3.195"'d» v/ith the 
form in 3.195a- being unacceptable. 

3,193a) John amused the children with his stories, 
b) John was amused at the children's antics. 

3.19^'a) John's am.using the children with his stories 
b) John's being amused at the children's antics 

3.195a) ^-John's arauement of the children with his 
stories 
b) John's amusement at the children's antics 

The unacceptability of 3.195a raises a couple of pro- 
blems. The first problem is that of instrumental phrases 
such as wi th his stories . The examples from Chomsky which 
I have .lust repeated above involve sentences with the verb 
amuse , which belongs to the set of psychological predicates. 
The sentence in 3.193a has at least two semantic readings. 
One reading involves the presupposition that John intended 
to amuse the children, while the other reading does not 
include that presupposition. The two readings m.ay be illus- 
trated by the use of the adverbs cleverly and inadverte ntly, 
as in the sentences in 3.187' 

3,l8?a) John cleverly amused the children with his 
stories, 
b) John inadvertently amused the children with 
his stories. 



10^ ■ 
The first reading results from the derivation of 3 -1933- 
from the underlying structure illustrated in 3-197' 



3-197) 




stories John 

The other reading results from the derivation of 3 •193a 

20 

from the underlying structure illustrated in 3-19S. 

3.193) ^• 




3^ 

stories V NP NP 

I t ! 
tell stories John 

The second semantic reading is also associated with the 
sentence in 3-199' 

3<199) John's stories amused the children. 

The structure of 3^ in 3-198 is the same as that of 3, 
in 3' 197- This means that the structure underlying the 
second S8ma.ntic reading of 3 •193a is embedded in the struc- 
ture underlying the first semantic reading of that sentence. 
The derivation of the sentence in 3 '1933. from the underlying 
structure in 3 '19? involves the reduction of {^^.Tp stories 
[.- John to l d stories ]],^ X,p to John's stories , the pronominal- 



IB-LI wiwmmp* 



■a6H»** - ^»">*w <s aJT S i*« t b 



<n— ywLUtu pa^igutw^w 



105 

isatioa of the second occurrence of John » and something like 

CAUSATIVE FORTCATICN or PREDICATr: RAISING to incorporate 

21 
CAUSE into amuse . 



The derivation of either the sentence in 3.193a or the 
one in 3-190 from the structure in 3-198 can be explained by 
allov/ing John to be optionally moved out of the embedded sen- 
tence to subject position of the next higher sentence in the 
case of 3.193as vdth the alternative being to move the 
reduced form of the MP dominating 3^^, John's stories , into 
subject position. 

The sentence in 3-199 is repeated in the set of sen- 
tences in 3.200, v/hich have the corresponding passive sen- 
tences in 3.201. The sentences in 3-202, v/hich resemble the 
passive sentences in 3 '201, but have some preposition other 
than b2£ preceding the Agent phrase, are found only v;ith verbs 
belonging to the set of psychological predicates. 

3.200a) John's stories amused the children. 

b) The children's antics axmused John. 

c) The storm frightened Mary. 

d) The ceremony pleased Bob. 

3.201a) The children were amused by John's stories. 

b) John v/as amused by the children's antics. 

. c) Mary v/as frightened by the storm, 

d) Bob was pleased by the ceremony. 

3.202a) The children were amused at John's stories. 

b) John was amused at the children's antics. 

c) Mary v;as frightened of the storm. 

d) Bob was pleased with the ceremony. 

The sentences in 3-200, 3-201 and 3-202 have the respec- 
tive corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3 -2031 
3.204 and 3-205. 



MMUlt JgrJ<l-»^^'-W»*-='^*^=— — -^t*^gM - " i^lW 1? ^ * ;' II W**' 



106 • ■ ■ ■ 

3' 203a) John's stories' amusing the children 

b) the children's antics' amusing John 

c) the storm's frightening Mary 

d) the cere.Tiony's pleasing Bob 

3 ■ 204a) the children's being amused by John's stories 

b) John's being amused by the children's antics 

c) Mary's being frightened by the storai 

d) Bob's being pleased by the ceremony 

3- 205a) the children's being amused at John's stories 

b) John's being amused at the children's antics 

c) Marj/'s being frightened of the storm 

d) Bob's being pleased with the ceremony 



V/hile there are the derived nominal complements in 
3-208 corresponding to the sentences in 3-202 which are 
acceptable, the forms in 3'206 and' 3- 207, v/hich would appear 
to be the expected derived nominal complements corresponding 
to the sentences in 3*200 and 3-201 respectively, are not 
acceptable. 

3'206a) ^John's stories' amusement of the children 

b) '-'the children's antics' amusement of John 

c) "*the storm's fright of Mary 

d) *the ceremony's pleasure of Bob 

lb- 

3.207a) *the children's amusement by John's stories 

b) *John's amusement by the children's antics 

c) *Ivlary's fright by the storm 

d) *3ob's pleasure by the storm 

3- 208a) the children's amusement at John's stories 

b) John's amusement at the children's antics 

c) Mary's fright of the storm 

d) Bob's pleasure with the ceremony 

Only the pseudopassive sentences in 3-202 have accepta- 
ble corresponding derived nominal complements- There are no 
derived nominal complements based on psychological predi- 
cates which show nominal-initial order such as v;e have found 
associated with other types of predicates. The forms in 
3-209 are not acceptable. 



■*«Mt— t^ j m m » -.iW CH^ i U ■ ■ W H ii WQ t-t M 



10? 

3.?09a) ^"^the amusement of the children at John's stories 

b) -Hhe amusement of John at the children's antics 

c) -^^the fright of Mary of the storm 

d) *the pleasure of Bob with the ceremony 

In Chapter Two I noted that eagerness does not occur 
in derived nominal complements with nominal- initial order, 
so that » the eagerness of John to please is unacceptable. 
The adjective eager describes a mental state, and belongs 
to the class of emotive predicates, of which psychological 
predicates are a part. The lack of nominal- Initial derived 
nominal complements seems to be characteristic of emotive 

predicates. 

Following Chomsky's claim that derived nominal comple- 
ments correspond to base phrase markers, the sentences in 
3. 1933- . 3.200 and 3.201 do not have acceptable correspond- 
ing derived nominal complements because certain rules have 
ap-olied in their derivations which are not allowed to apply 
in the derivation of derived nominal complements. I have 
indicated that one rule has applied in the derivation of 
3.193a which has not applied in the derivations of 3.202, 
and which ap"oears to be related to the RAISING rules. 

It is not clear what rules have applied in the deriva- 
tions of the sentences in 3.200 and 3,201 which have not 
applied in the derivations of the sentences in 3,202. I 
will assume an ad hoc rule of PSYCH-CHANGE as a way of refer- 
ring in the next chapter to the pattern of acceptability 
of derived nominal complements associated with psycholo- 
gical predicates. 



■Mirt-^M^i-^'.'-t-iim—Miww iiTTII"l — -|lir-li-tt- ":'" .]..^....«.^^.-— .- t^yr-^^ 



108 
Conclus ion 
■ In this chapter I first argued that sentences which 
have undergone any of the RAISING rules do not have corres- 
ponding derived nominal complements. I then showed that 
sentences which have undergone IT-SXTRAPOSITION in their 
derivations have corresponding derived nominal complements, . 
v;hile sentences which met the structural description of 
IT-SXTRAPOSITION, but to which the rule did not apply in 
their derivation, do not have corresponding derived nominal 
com-plements. I then showed that while all simple active 
sentences have corresponding derived nominal complements, 
only some passive sentences have corresponding derived 
nominal complements, and that for every pair of active and 
passive sentences there is a derived nominal complement to 
which only the AGSNT-POSTPOSING part of Passivization has 
ariplied. I then argued that with a predicate-iTiitial ana- 
lysis both extraposed and nonextraposed and active and pas- 
sive sentences can be related, at least in partj by the 
same rule, NP-PRSPOSING. I have also discussed certain 
interesting aspects of NP-PREPOSING, and concluded that the 
aD-olication of the rule in the derivation of derived nominal 
complements is governed by a set of conditions dependent on 
different aspects of the environment. Finally, I have 
argued that IT-INSSRTION , THERE - INSERT ION and PSYCH-CHANGE 
do not apply in the derivation of derived nominal comple- 
ments, and that the application of EQUI-NP-DELETION is 
blocked in derived nominal complements for certain underly- 
ing verbs. 



109 

In this chapter I have shovrn that the adoption of a 
predicate-initial analysis of underlying structure allows 
the statement of restrictions on the occurrence of derived 
nominal complements in terms of the application of certain 
rules being ■blocked in the derivation of derived nominal 
compleraents from underlying embedded sentences. I will 
discuss how such rules are blocked in Chapter Four. 

The analysis in this chapter shows that, contrary to 
Chorasky's claiin, the restrictions on the productivity of 
derived nominal complements can be easily stated within a 
transformational framework. In Chapter Four I will discuss 
how the noun phrase-like internal structure of derived nom- 
inal complements can also be accounted for in a transforma- 
tional frame y/ork, based on the analysis given in this 
chapter. 



NOTES 



■'- One exception to this claioi is that verbs like be and 
have do not function as main verbs in sentences with corres- 
ponding derived nominal complements, as was discussed in 
Chapter Two. 

2 TOUGK -MOVEMENT is a RAISING rule. It raises the 
object of an embedded sentence to subject of the next higher 
sentence. The other RAISING rules are RAISING-TO-OBJi'CT, 
which raises the subject of an embedded sentence to object . 
of the next higher sentence, and RAI3ING~T0-3UBJ£CT, which 
raises the subject of an embedded sentence to subject of the 
next higher sentence. These three RAISING rules are dis- 
cussed in detail in Stocicwell et al. (1973)- TOUGH -MOVSMi^NT 
is also discussed in Postal (1971)- The relation of IT-2X- 
TRAPOSITION and the RAISING rules to derived nominal comple- 
ments is discussed in the next two sections. 

-^ An indefinite object of pleas e has been deleted. 
■ John as the subject of Dlease has been deleted by 
r;QUI~NP -DELETION (discussed in the section under that name 
below). The unspecified object of please has also been 
deleted. 

^ This derivation is questionable. See the section on 
rr-aXTRAPOSITION below, 

110 



Ill . . 

Removal of the subject of a that-coraplement (here, by 
RAI3ING-T0 -SUBJECT ) results in the formation of an infini- 
tival complement, as in 3«25' This will be discussed in more 
detail in Chapter Four. 

This is unacceptable on the reading of ^ Jerry's ■ 
appearance of opening: the door . A reading based on some- 
thing like Jerry appeared in order to open the door is not 

intended. 

8 

The possessive suffix does not seem to be necessary 

with it in gerundive nominal complements, and its absence 

may improve such complements for some speakers. Some speak- 
ers also apparently accept nouns v/ithout the possessive suf- 
fix in gerundive nominal complements. Ross (1972b) calls 
such forms accusative-ing: complements . Eraser (1970) dis- 
cusses apparent accusative -ing complements » and analyzes 
them as Objects-Complement constructions. The forms in 3-35 
seem to be gerundive nominal complements, rather than some 

such construction. , • • 

g 

ilasy, and severa.1 other adjectives and predicate 
nouns which govern TOUGH -MOVEMENT . present a special problem. 
The only satisfying use of a derived nominal corresponding 
"i^'o easy seems to be in a construction like the ease v;ith 
'■vhich Joh n is 'oleased , v,'hich corresponds to something like 
John is plea sed .w ith ea.se/easily . I have no explanation for 

this exception to DERIVED NOMINALIZATION . 

10 

In a grammar which includes the rules of PASSI'/IZA- 

TIGN and IT -EXTRAPOSITION, those two rules must be ordered 



^ni^tiPta^ m ^:Ttv^f\)r'£i*}\*TT^T^^ ^ *F ^' ^i e > ^ i^'f''- ^* -- ^ '' .^ \ fy *r ' '' ! ^'\*'^ '^>-^^'-^-^ -*•? .|f^•.♦^<-^rr-•»^r• 



112 

after RAISING-TO -OBJECT but before TOUGK -MOVEMENT and RAIS- 
IN G- TO -SUBJiGT . A sentence like John was believed by i/lary 
to be a fo ol is derived by PASSIVIZATION from the structure 
underlying Mary believes John to be a fool , which is derived 
in turn by RAI3ING-T0-O3J.-iGT from the structure underlying 
Mary believes that John is a fool . This indicates that RAIS- 
ING-T0-03J:5GT must precede PAS3IVIZATI0N. The sentence it 
is beli e ved by Mary that John is a fool is derived by IT -EX- 
TRAPOSITION froa the structure underlying that John is a 
fool is believed bv Mary , which is derived in turn by PASSI- 
VIZATION from the structure underlying r^iary believes that 
John is a fool . This indicates that PAS3IVIZATI0N must pre- 
cede IT -EXTRAPOSITION . On the other hand, the sentence John 
is easy to Dlease is derived by TOUGH -MOVMENT froni the 
structure underlying it is easy to please John ^ which is in 
turn derived by IT. "EXTRAPOSITION from the strucTture underly- 
ing to please John is easy . Similarly! the sentence John is 
lik ely to v/in the prize is derived by RAISING-TO -SUBJECT 
from the structure underlying it is likely that John will 
win the prize . which is in turn derived by IT-EXTRAPOSITION 
from the structure underlying that John will v/in the prize 
is,„ likely . This indicates that IT-EXTRAPOSITION must pre- 
cede TOUGH -MO/EIffiNT and RAISING-TO-SUBJECT. Assuming trans- 
itivity for the ordering relationships exemplified above, 
the order of the five rules within a single cycle must be; 
RAISING -TO -OBJECT, PASSIVIZATION , IT-EXTRAPOSITION and 
TOUGH -MOVEMENT and RAISING-T0-SU3JEGT . However, I will 



■ 113 , . ■ , 

argue belov/ (cf. IT-SCTRAPOSITION and NP-PR.d:?03ING ) that 
PA3SIVIZATI0N and IT~BXTRAP0SITION are not rules of English, 
and that the relationships to be accounted for by those 
rules are accounted for by the rule of NP-PR3P03ING . Under 
this analysis, RAISING-TO-OBJiiGT precedes NP-PRiPOSING, and • 
TOUGH -MQV^MiiNT and RAISING-TO-SUBJEOT are not ordered with 
respect to NP-PRiiPOSING. 

■'"■^ The rule is called £XTRAPOSITION in Rosenbaum (I967) • 
The name IT -EXTRAPOSITION has come into use to distinguish 
it from other rules of EXTRAPOSITION. 

— The unacceptability of the forms in 3-53 and 3.5^ 
can be "explained" by the statement that sentential comple- 
ments are not allowed to form possessives in English. This 
is an observation J however, not an explanation. Indeed, this 
restriction also applies to derived nominal complements, as 
in •^'• Danny's de-parture's imminence , while ordinary noun 
phrases of greater length freely form possessives, as in the 
K ing of England's crovm and the man next door's son-in-law . 
In this case, derived nominal complements behave like embed- 
ded sentences, not like noun phrases. 

-^ It would appear that sentences like those in i. are 
counter-evidence to this statement. 

i^a) That John is late seem.s likely. 

b) That Mildred has fallen dovrn appears certain, 

c) That Mike is a brilliant student happens to be true. 

However s such sentences are derived by RAISING-TO -SUBJECT 
from the structures underlying the sentences in ii . 



■i?*,cv»Y*np!»- 



iia) It seems that it is likely that John is late. 

b) It appears that it is certain that Mildred has 

fallen down. 

c) It happens that it is true that Mike is a 

brilliant student. 

■'"^ Ross' example (I.IO). 

■^^ Ross* exaimple (^.180). 

There does not allow the possessive suffix at all in 
gerundive nominal complements (cf. Note 8 above). 

'^ I have indicated the alternate forms in 3-162 since 
Nevv-raeyer paired 3.l62aii with 3-l60a in his discussion of 
this point. 

The form in 3'l65t) seems pretty bad to me. The 
choice of ha-openstance as the derived nominal corresponding 
to hap-pen seems more appropriate here than the other possi- 
bility, happening; . 

^^ SQUI-NP-DSLSTION applies to the end-cyclic subject 
of an embedded sentence ^ as shown by its applidTation to the 
derived subjects of embedded passive sentences. Both i and 
ii are possible results of applying the rule. 

i) Someone intended to leave Mary behind. 

ii ) Mary did not intend to be left behind by anyone. 
Lee (1970: 70ff.) suggests that the surface subjects 
of sentences like John amused t he children by tellins: 
stories (non-intentional reading) are derived by a RAISING 
rule from the embedded sentence Joh n told stories . The para- 
phrase John's telling; stories ajiused the children v/ould be 
derived by moving the whole embedded sentence into subject 
position. In the sentence John amused the children v/ith his 



115 
stories, his stories (= John's stories ) is a reduced form of 
stories which John told - Hence, it would appear that a RAIS- 
I.NG rule could move John out of with John's stories (or, 
rather, copy it out, leaving the pronoun) and into subject 
position. Lee's suggestion would involve extending the list 
of predicates governing RAISING- rules to psychological predi- 
cates. My suggestion would involve postulating a new RAIS- 
ING rule which leaves a pronoun behind, and v/ould require 
independent motivation for the substitution of with for the 
predicate to derive phrases like with his stories . 



r,r^*f,fi*m^ iB-9 'i^i»m^jmfi^tci^w^'mimiri*iW v *t^i s »*uif*^ 



CHAPTER FOUR 
RULE-ORDERING AND DERIVED NOMINAL C0MPLEI>iENT3 



Introduction 

In Chapter Three I showed for a number of examples that 
whether or not a particular sentence has a corresponding 
derived nominal complement depends on whether or not that 
sentence has undergone one or more of a certain set of trans- 
formations in its derivation. Those sentences which have 
undergone one of the rules in question do not have corres- 
ponding derived nominal complements. In this chapter I v/ill 
offer an explanation for the above fact. 

In Chapter One I stated my assumption that derived nomi- 
nal complements are derived transformationally -from underly- 
ing embedded sentences. In Chapter Two I showed that, with 
the exception of the Germanic me^iiber of Germanic-Latinate 
synonym pairs, all predicates have corresponding derived 
nominals. Finally, in Chapter Three I showed that the only 
other restrictions on the productivity of derived nominal 
complements are due to the failure of certain transforma- 
tional rules to apply in the derivation of derived nominal 
complements. In this chapter I v/ill argue that certain 
rules are blocked from applying in derived nominal comple- 
ments because DERIVED NOMINALIZATION precedes those rules, 
and the rules cannot apply to nominalized structures. I 

116 



r » t TW »*'- a i J JWBT-tM lli l ». I *; i | M Wi g ^ 1 ^ ^- 1 -" I j' P ^*~ ,^* 1 1 II " 'f'*" ' *" *^ I"' " ** 



117 

will also argue that the rule known as COD/iPLEMEIvTIZER PLACE-. 
MENT is not compatible v/ith the theory of the cycle, and 
that no such rule is necessary in any case for any comple- 
ments other than nominal complements. Although it will 
appear that GOMPLSIvlENTIZER PLACEMENT will still be needed to 
properly account for nominal complements, I will argue that 
it is better to have the rules of DERIVED NOMINALIZATION and 
CERUNDIYE NOMINALIZATION apply on the cycle of the comple- 
ment, and to allow these rules to 'look up' into the next 
higher sentence and include the predicate of the next higher 
sentence in their environments than it is to retain COMPLE- 
MSMTIZER PLACEMENT. Finally, I will argue that the specific 
characteristics of derived nominal complements are not the 
direct result of the application of DERIVED NOMINALIZATION, 
but rather the result of a process that begins with the 
application of DERIVED NOMINALIZATIGN , 

Nev^^meyer*s Proposal 

The argument that appropriate ordering of the rules 
will account for the facts of productivity was presented 
independently in Albury (1971) and Newmeyer (1971). 
Hevr^eve^ argues that DERIVED NOMINALIZATIGN precedes all the 
cyclic rules, and by changing the predicate of the embedded 
sentence to a nominal, prevents the application of any 
later rule which mentions the predicate in its structural 
description. 

Newmeyer 's claim that DERIVED NOMINALIZATIGN precedes 
all cyclic rules seems to imply that the rule is precyclic. 



118 ■ 
I vdll not accept Nev/meyer's claini as it stands, but will 
present arguments below that DERIVED NOMINALIZATION is 
cyclic, and ordered very early in the cycle, although not 
necessarily first in the cycle. 

Newmeyer's proposal that the nominalization of the 
underlying predicate blocks the later application of rules 
mentioning predicate in their structural descriptions 
appears to be well motivated. In Chapter Three I showed 
that there are no acceptable derived nominal complements 
corresponding to sentences v.'hich have undergone one of the 
RAISING rules, IT-INSERTION, THERE -INSERTION . DATIVE-MOVE- 
IvlENT, and/or PSYCH -CHANGE in their derivations. 

Each of the RAISING rules raises a noun phrase into a 
position defined by its relationship to the predicate of the 
higher sentence. In RAISING-T0-03JSGT, the noun phrase is 
raised into a position immediately to the right of the pre- 
dicate of the higher sentence. In RAISING-TO -SUBJECT (and 
the similar rules governed by psychological predicates) and 
TOUGH -IvlOvEIvlENT, the noun phrase is raised into a position 
immediately to the left of the predicate of the higher 
sentence. 

IT -INSERTION and THERE -INSERTION introduce, in appro- 
priate circumstances, a semantically empty v/ord as the sub- 
ject of the predicate. That is, these rules insert it or 
there immediately to the left of the predicate. 

DATIVE-M07EMENT involves a switch in position between 
direct and indirect objects, and thus has the effect of 



■(w>ijMrfi i"^ ■ *»i "T' T -f ' ^^ ^g^ r'*'— ■I''-***""' " — ^ ■■ii ' i ' ^i 



119 
raoving an indirect object to a position imxnediately to the 
right of the predicate. 

Although I have not said anything about the form of 
P3YGH -CHANGE, this rule (or set of rules) involves the 
choice of the noun phrase to be subject of the sentence in 
surface structure, as v/ell as differences in the surface 
form of the predicate. 

Each of these rules must refer explicitly to the struc- 
tural relationships between a noun phrase and a predicate. 
The structural description of each rule must include the 
mention of predicate within the sentence to which the rule 
is directly applying. 

The rule of NP-PREPOSING presents some difficulty at 
this point. This rule also moves a noun phrase to a posi- 
tion immediately to the left of a predicate, thus making it 
the subject of the predicate in surface structure. By 
Newmeyer's proposal, this rule should not apply in the deri- 
vation of derived nominal complements. In fact, it does so 
apply, although its application is very limited. The appli- 
cation of NP-PREPOSING in the derivation of derived nominal 
complements is limited to simple noun phrases and to a sub- 
set of predicates, and moreover, is optional even when it 
does apply, while the application of NP-PRSPOSING to head 
nouns is always obligatory in the derivation of sentences, 
if the structural description of the rule is met. There 
would be no conflict with Nevvmeyer's proposal if it v;ere 
assumed that a different rule applied in the derivation of 



I i< m ' ■ I ■ n ip^" I I'uriT- nr i i-n nr - trTr n •"Hr'rTrT -f'TTt"- 



120 

derived noaiinal complements than did in the derivation of 
sentences, but as I showed in Chapter Three, there is no 
other reason to postulate tv/o rules of NP-PREPOSING. I see 
no non-ad hoc way around this problem. Either NP-PREP03IKG 
violates Newmeyer's proposed constraint, or two rules of 
-NP-PREPOSING are admitted on the sole basis of different 
conditions on application in the derivation of sentences 
and of derived nominal complements. 

Newmeyer bolsters the argument for his proposal by 
pointing to the rules of SQUI-NP -DELETION and REFLEXIVE. 
SQUT-NP -DELETION applies to many, but not all, derived nom- 
inal complements which meet the structural description of the 
rule. Applicability seems to be governed by many interact- 
ing factors, two of v^hich are the previous application of , 
DERIVED NOMINALIZATION and the predicate nominalized, as 
mentioned in the section on that rule in Ghapte-r Three. 
There appears to be no restriction on the application of 
REFLEXIVE to derived nominal complements, as indicated by 
the sentences in ^.1, with their corresponding gerundive 
nominal complements in 4.2 and derived nominal complements 

m 4.3 

Bill hates himself. 

The president promoted himself to generalisimo. 

John described himself as intelligent. 

Bill's hating himself. 

the president's promoting himself to generalisimo 

John's describing himself as intelligent 

Bill's hatred of himself 
the president's promotion of himself to 
generalisimo 
c) John's description of himself as intelligent 



4. 


la) 
b) 
c) 


4. 


2a) 
b) 
c) 


4. 


3a) 
b) 



121 

RiTFLSXIVE applies between two identical noun phrases 
doniinated. by a single S node with no intervening 3 node 
(clause mates). There is no need to mention Tjredicate in 
the structural description of the rule. EQUI-NP-DiSLETION 
applies betv/een tv/o identical noun phrases also, but the 
noun phrases require careful definition. One noun phrase 
(the one deleted) is the subject of an embedded sentence 
(or complement). V/hile subject is defined in terms of the 
relation of a noun phrase to a predicate, this particular 
occurrence of subject is embedded within the sentence the 
rule is applying to, and does not bear on Newmeyer's claim, 
which refers to the higher sentence which is being nominal- 
ized. In the analysis of this rule presented in Stockwell 
et al. (1973), the appropriate noun of the higher sentence 
is defined by case role, which is independent of any mention 
of predicate . As long as SQUI -MP -DELETION can'^be stated 
v.'ithout mention of the predicate of the higher sentence, 
there is no contradiction of Nev/meyer's proposal. 

The Order of the Rules 
The Cyclic Nature of AGBNT-PREPOSIMG 

Newmeyer states that DERI>/ED NOr/ilNALIZATION precedes 
all the cyclic rules. As was mentioned in Chapter Three, 
the first rule in Chomsky's (1970) analysis of passivization 
is AGENT-POSTPOSING (equivalent to the nonapplication of 
AGENT-PRSP03ING in a predicate-initial analysis). 
AGEMT-POSTPOSING (or AGENT -PREPOSING) applies freely in 
derived noralnal complements, even though predicate is 



122 
included in its structural description. ~ If New.Tieyer's pro- 
posal is to stand, then AaElHr-POSTPOSING (or AGSNT-PRSPOSING) 
must precede DERIViSD NOMINALIZATION. Newmeyer states that 
there is no evidence that AGiiNT-POSTPOSING is cyclic, so 
that it may be assumed to precede DERIVED NOMINALIZATION. 

The question of whether or not AGfiNT -PROPOSING is cyc- 
lic is worth considering in detail, as it bears on the ques- 
tion of whether or not DERIYSD NOMINALIZATION is cyclic. 
The best evidence for the cyclic nature of a rule is the 
existence of some RULE X v/hich' would apply after AGSNT-PRE- 
POSING at some point in a derivation and before AG3NT-PREP0S- 
ING somewhere else. In fact, there is no such rule known in 
the grammar of English, leading to Newmeyer's claim that 
there is no evidence for the cyclic nature of AGENT -POSTPOS- 
ING (or, here, AGENT -PREPCSING ) . However, there is reason 
to believe that there could be no such evidence, even though 
AG-EIvT-PRSPOSING were a cyclic rule. If AGENT-PREPOSING were 
the first rule of the cyclce, or if it were preceded in the 
cycle only by rules with which it could never interact, then 
it would be impossible to find evidence of the type discussed 
above for the cyclic nature of AGENT -PREPOSING. 

AGENT -PREPOSING makes an Agent noun phrase into the 
subject of a sentence. No m.atter how the rule is formulated 
(even if it is formulated as AGENT -POSTPOSING ) , the Agent 
noun phrase is dominated by the same S, with no intervening 
S, both before and after the application of the rule. No 
RULE X can be shov/n to apply before AGENT -PREPOSING, since 



w-» w-* »-=inii,-«ii ii •— "i*-^ '• 



■ ■ , 123 
any previous application of RULE X would be to an S lov/er 
than the S of the Agent noun phrase in question, and would 
thus have no effect on the higher 3. Given the nature of 
AG3NT-PRKP0SING and the assumption that it is one of the 
earliest rules in the cycle, it is impossible to show that 
it follows any other cyclic rule. 

Since it would appear that it is impossible to discover 
direct evidence of the cyclic nature of AGENT-PREP03ING, I 
would like to consider some indirect evidence. AGENT -PRS- 
FOSING can apply in more than one S in a single derivation, 
as can be seen in the sentences in ^.4. 

4.^a) John discovered that Mary hated him. 

b) Jerry hoped that Mary would find out that Mack 
really loved Suzie. 

This in itself does not show that AGENT-PREPOSING is 

cyclic, since a precyclic rule could conceivably prepose all 

•Or- 

Agents within their respective sentences at one time. How- 
ever, AGENT-PREPOSING does not necessarily apply to all 

Agents in a single derivation, so that passive sentences may 

be embedded in active sentences and vice versa, as in ^-5' 

i^. 5a.) John hoped that the package would be handled 
carefully by the Post Office. 

b) Mary claimed that she was being followed by a 

strange man. 

c) That Bob" had betrayed Tom was not known to the 

other members of the cell. 

d) That the Earth is not a perfect sphere v/as demon- 

strated by the first artificial satellite. 

For a precyclic rule to produce such structures, it 
would need to not only recognize Agents within individual 
embedded sentences, but it would also have to recognize the 



■ii u .i .w I' II I m r « ■ f ill II f 1 1 , -«--'-?-'" 



12^ 

appropriate contextual information governing the application 
of the rule within each embedded sentence. The rule would 
also have to be constrained to prevent it from moving an 
Agent out of its own sentence. All of this means that if ■ 
AGENT -PR JiPOSING were precyclic, it would have to be formu- 
lated to apply to possibly many different sentences within 
a single tree, but at the sax-ne time confine each application 
to a single sentence, and also be governed as to whether or 
not to apply in any given sentence by contextual information 
specific to that sentence. All-in-all, this does not seem 
to be a very desirable type of rule. All of the above com- 
plications may be avoided by assuming that AGENT -PROPOSING 
is a cyclic rule. 
The Place of Rules of Nominalization in the Cycle 

Since, as was mentioned before, AGENT -PREP OS IN G 
involves the mention of -predicate in its structural descrip- 
tion, and can apply freely in the derivations of derived 
nominal complements, it must precede DERIVED NOMINALIZATION. 
This means that DERIVED NOMINALIZATION is also cyclic. That 
this is so is also shown indirectly by the existence of the 
derived nominal complements in 4-. 6, which in turn have embed- 
ded derived nominal complements. 

^i. 6a) Harvey's discovery of Mary's disappearance 

b) Bill's search for evidence of John's betrayal 

of Alice 

c) Jane's reluctance to admit her hatred of Jerry 

The same arguments given above to show the undesirabi- 
lity of making AGENT-PREPOSING a precyclic rule also apply 
to DERIVED NOMINALIZATION. 



wsr»*ll&'i !•«•*. 



125 

It can be shovm that all of the other rules discussed, 
above may be ordered after DERIVED NOMINALIZATION. The 
rules v/hich mention predicate in their structural descrip- 
tions are blocked if the predicate has been nominalized; 
hence, any rule of this sort which does not apply to any 
derived nominal complement m.ay be presumed to follow DERIVED 
NOMINAJLIZATION. EQUI-NP-D.ELETION is blocked for some 
derived nominals, but not for their corresponding predicates. 
As v/as mentioned in Chapter Three, there seem to be several 
factors at work blocking EQUI-NP -DELETION in the derivations 
of derived nominal complements, but whatever they are, the 
simplest explanation for the fact that it is blocked in som.e 
derived nominal complements is that the rule follows DERIVED 
NOMINALIZATION. 

REFLEXIVE, v/hich does not interact with DERIVED NOMINAL- 
IZATION, can nevertheless be shown to follow a^ least one 
rule which follows DERIVED NOMINALIZATION. The sentences in 
^.7 have reflexive nouns as objects. The reflexive nouns 
have been raised to object position from the embedded sen- 
tences (in ^.8) underlying the infinitive and gerundive nom- 
inal complements by RAISING-TO-OBJECT. ^ 

4.7a} John believes himself to be handsome. 

b) Mary considers herself to be intelligent. 

c) Bill likes to watch himself acting in the movies. 

4.8a) John believes f^John is handsomely 

b) Mary considers [gMary is intelligent^o 

c) Bill likes [q Bill watch r^, Bill act in the 

^1 ^2 

movieslo Iq 
^2 "1 



. -.,- -.t-^T-«...-w^. ■ ,m-^ . .■i.iii !■■ • T i ll . IK^^M 



■ 126 , 

Since REFLEXIVE cannot cross sentence boundaries in its 
application, the subjects of the embedded sentences cannot 
become reflexive until they have been raised to object of 
the predicate in the higher sentence. Hence, REFLEXIVE must 
follow RAISING, which follows DERIVED NOMINALIZATION. The 
fact that REFLEXIVE is not blocked by DERIVED NOMINALIZATION 
supports Newmeyer's claim that only rules that mention predi- 
cate are regularly blocked by DERIVED NOMINALIZATION. 

All of the rules discussed above which are blocked by 
DERIVED NOMINALIZATION apply freely in gerundive nominal com- 
plements. GERUNDIVE NOMINALIZATION also changes the predi- 
cate so that it no longer functions as such. No modals are 
present in gerundive nominal complements, and -ing replaces 
the tense marker. I see no reason why this cannot be called 
nominalization of the predicate. The presence of be and 
have as auxiliaries and the absence of the preposition of 
folloY/ing gerundive nominals can be explained by ordering 
the rules responsible after DERIVED NOMINALIZATION and 
before GERUNDIVE NOMINALIZATION. If be and have are 
inserted, nominalization blocks the rule. If they are pre- 
sent in deeply underlying structures, they are deleted by a 
rule that applies to noun phrases, not to sentences. If of 
is inserted, the rule applies to noun phrases, not to sen- 
tences. If of is present in deeply underlying structures, 
it is deleted by a rule that is blocked by nominalization. 

I have just argued, in effect, that most cyclic rules 
are ordered between DERIVED NOMINALIZATION and GERUNDIVE 



tfCMi?>f-*Stf^-= ^" *-* '■■ ^ ^-^ip-^-i -WriVf'^^'r^-* 



127 
NOMINALIZATION. This would mean that derived nominal comple- 
ments would function as noun phrases for most of the cycle, 
while, gerundive nominal complements would function as sen- 
tences for most of the cycle. One of Chomsky's (1970) argu- 
ments for denying an origin as underlying embedded sentences 
to derived nominal complements is that they have a noun 
phrase-like internal structure, v/hile gerundive nominal com- 
plements have a sentence-like internal structure. Having 
derived nominal complements function as noun phrases through 
most of the cycle while gerundive nominal complements do not 
would account for the observed differences. Before pursuing 
this proposal further, I must turn to a discussion of the 
nature of the cycle. 

The Cycle g.nd Complementation 
COMPLEMaNTIZBR PLACEMENT 

. An unstated assumption underlying the discussion in the 
previous section is that DERIVED NOMINALIZATION (and GERUND- 
IVE NOMIN.\LIZATION) apply in the same cycle as the other 
rules discussed in connection with the examples presented in 
Chapter Three. This means that in the derivation of the sen- 
tences in ^.9 from the underlying structure in ^.10, DERIVED 
NOMINALIZATION (in the case of ^.9a) and GERUNDIVE NOMINALI- 
ZATION (in the case of ^.9b) apply to the sentence dominated 
by the node S, . Rules v>;hich refer to predicate in their 
structural description are blocked if the nominalization 
operation in 4.11 has been performed preceding the rule 
within the same cycle. 



128 

4.9a) John's disruption of the meeting created, panic, 
b) John's disrupting the meeting created panic. 



4.10) 





==^ N NP NP 

NP disruption John meeting 
meeting 

The description of the operation of nominalization 
given in the above paragraph is not in accord with the usual 
concept of the nature of rules of complementation found in 
the literature. Rosenbaum (196?) presents a rule he calls 
CCMPLSMENTIZER PLACSMSNT which is intended to account for ' ■ 
the placement of that in that -complements, for and to in 
infinitival complements, and the - '^ and -ing suffixes in 
gerundive nominal complements. With that-complements, COM- 
PL£?-1£NTIZER PLACEMENT simply adjoins that to an embedded 
sentence. V/ith infinitival or gerundive nominal complements, 
COMPLEMENTIZER PLACEMENT inserts for and to or - ' s and - ing 
into the embedded sentence. The type of complement formed 
is governed by the predicate in the higher sentence. In the 
derivation of the sentences in 4.12 from the underlying 
structure in 4.13, COMPLEMENTIZER PLACEMENT would apply on 
the cycle of S in each case. 



li iM. m Up tti n l i ln 



129 

4.12a) That John won surprises me. 

b) For John to win v/ould surprise me 

c) John's winning surprises me- 



4.13) 




There is good reason for having COMPLEMENTIZER PLACE- 
MENT apply on the cycle of S^ in 4.13. This allows COMPLE- 
MENTIZER PLACEMENT to apply to the higher sentence which 
includes the predicate which governs the type of complement 
the embedded sentence may become, and it prevents COMPLE- 
MENTIZER PLAC3i1ENT from applying to underlying sentences 
which are not embedded, 

Bresnan (1970:299-300) argues that this formulation of 
G0MPLED4ENTIZER PLACEMENT is peculiar in that "it violates 
an otherwise well-motivated universal stated by Chomsky 
( 19658 l46), namely, that while transformations may remove 
material from embedded sentences, no transformation can 
insert morphological material into 'lower' sentences." I 
will now examine this peculiarity of COMPLEiMENTIZER PLACE- 
MENT in more detail. 

To fa.cilitate this discussion I would like to introduce 
the terms proper constituent and embedded constituent . I 
will define a proper constituent of a sentence S as a con- 
stituent dominated by S , but not dominated by an S which 

^ n "^ m 



130 
is also dominated by S. . In other words ^ a proper consti- 
tuent is any constituent of a sentence v/hich is not also a 
constituent of a sentence embedded in the first sentence. 
An embedded constituent of a sentence S.^ is a constituent 
which is dominated by a sentence S^ which is dominated by 
the sentence S • In other words, an embedded constituent of 
a sentence is a proper, constituent of a sentence embedded in 
the first sentence. . 

The transformations discussed here may be divided into 
three classes on the basis of their effect on the proper and 
embedded constituents of the sentences they apply to. Some 
rules affect only proper constituents. These rules may move 
proper constituents, as with AGENT-PREPOSING, NP-PRSPOSING 
and DATIVE -MOVEMENT, create proper constituents, as v/ith 
IT-INSERTION and THERE -INSERTION , or delete proper consti- 
tuents, as with the rule or rules which delete-inde terminate 
subjects or objects to derived sentences like those in 4.li^ 
from the underlying structures in 4-.15* 

4.1^a) It is easy to please John, 
b) John is eager to please. 

if. 15a) easy [j^p[3someone please John]2]j^p 

b) John eager [j^p[2John please someone ]g]j^jp 

Some rules affect both proper constituents and embedded 
constituents of the sentences they apply to. The RAISING 
rules convert embedded constituents into proper constituents. 

Finally, some rules affect only embedded constituents. 
There are three subdivisions of this group. There are rules 



131 
which move constituents do^vn into embedded sentences. These 
rules move constituents of abstract higher sentences dovm 
into the surface structure sentence, such as NiCGATIVE-MOYE- 
MENT (cf. R. Lakoff, I968) . Such rules appear to violate 
Chomsky's (I965) universal, but are outside the scope of 
this discussion. 

Another subdivision includes rules which delete embed- 
ded constituents, such as EQUI -MP -DELETION, v/hich deletes an 
embedded constituent v;hen it is identical to a specified 
proper constituent. 

The last subdivision consists of GOMPLET/iENTIZBR PLACE- 
KENT. This rule inserts com.plementizers into embedded sen- 
tences, but has no effect on any proper constituent. Its 
only connection with any proper constituent is that the 
predicate of the higher sentence governs the type of comple- 
ment formed. 

The RAISING rules, EQUI-NP -DELETION and COMPLSiViENTIZER 
PLACEiVlSNT are all governed by the predicate of the higher 
sentence. RAISING converts an embedded constituent into a 
pro'per constituent, EQUI-NP -DELETION requires identity 
between an embedded constituent and a proper constituent, 
but Rosenbaum's (I967) COMPLEiviSNTIZER PLACEMENT has no con- 
nection with the higher sentence that it applies on other 
than that it is governed by the higher predicate. 

There is only one justification for having a rule like 
COMPLEMENTIZER PLACEMENT apply in the cycle of the higher 
sentence in ^vhich the complement is embedded, and that is to 



rt 1^ ^ wm i^ a i M- ii ft i o .i twy w f' iii L ^f I L yiiiwi W ' W^F 



132 
allow the rule to be governed by the predicate of the higher 
sentence. This allows the rule to properly account for the 
restrictions on the type of complement a predicate may take, 
and for the fact that only embedded underlying sentences 
become complements in surface structure. The principle of 
the cycle requires that all cyclic rules apply to an embed- 
ded sentence before any cyclic rule applies to the higher 
sentence in which the first sentence is embedded. COMPLS- 
MENTIZSR PLACEMENT reaches do^/m into an embedded sentence to 
which the cycle has previously applied, and thus stretches 
the principle of the cycle to the breaking point. Chomsky's 
(1965s 1^6) claim that no transformation can insert morpholo- 
gical material into an embedded sentence sujjports the above 
analysis of C0MPLE?.1ENTIZER PLACElvlENT as violating the prin- 
ciple of the cycle. 

Bresnan (1970) offers, as a solution to the problems 
with COMPLEMENTIZER PLACEMENT discussed above, the 
Phrase-structure Hypothesis, v/hich is a proposal that com- 
plementizers are specified in deep structure by a 
phrase-structure rule that rewrites 3 as COMP+S , giving deep 
structure trees like that in ^■.l6, and that predicates are 
subcategorized for the form of the complem.entizer v/hich is 
lexically inserted under the node COMP. 

^.16 S, 




•miiii^iiiif jt.**-^.*!-^!'-**^—'—— '*•»•— ...e-^*—.".—ii<r-»w-»i-»^-'i- - 



133 

This Phrase-structure Hypothesis raises its ovm pro- 
blems. It requires the ad hoc extension of the principle of 
subcategorization features to allow such features to apply- 
across sentence boundaries. While it is easy enough to 
state that a particular predicate takes such-and-such comple- 
ments in surface structure, the expression of such restric- 
tions in underlying structure is not simple. The 
Phrase-structure Hypothesis requires that a subcategoriza- ' 
tion feature on the predicate in S„ in k.l6 govern the selec- 
tion of a lexical item (the complementizer) within the embed- 
ded sentence Sy At the same time, the complementizer under 
COMP must eventually be inserted into the embedded sentence 
S^. Any possible modification of the Phrase-structure Hypo- 
thesis would still require either that subcategorization fea- 
tures reach across sentence boundaries, or that complement- 
izers be inserted into lower sentences. Bresnan's 
Phrase-structure Hypothesis hides the problemi of COMPLMENT- 
IZiR PLACiilviENT without resolving it. 

I will show below that COMPLMENTIZER PLACSaiENT can be 
eliminated from the grammar without resort to anything like 
the Phrase-structure Hypothesis. I will first discuss the 
formation of infinitival complements, and then return to 
nominal complexments. As I have already m.entioned, the forma- 
tion of that - complements does not require the insertion of 
any complementizer into the embedded sentence, and thus will 
not enter into this discussion. 



111^ II ■■< III ■ ■ iii «iM Pi »i iT riiini i i i i i r i ii i ii|i|-| I II I I ■ 11 - ■ -. 



13^ 
I nfini tival Gomplerfientation 

In RosenbauiTi's analysis, infinitival complements are 
created by the insertion into the embedded sentence of for 
preposed to the subject and to preposed to the part of the 
predicate which would other wise carry the tense marker. A 
later rule would delete the preposes for *s of most infiniti- 
val complements. Thus, the underlying structures in 4.17 
are transformed into the intermiediate structures in 4.18 by 
COMPLEMENTIZER PLACEMENT, and eventually become the sen- 
tences in 4.19. 

4.17a) £0 John want £0 Bill join John's fraternitylq, lo 
^1 ^2 ^2 ^; 

b) [c. Jerry expect [^ Jerry win the prized lo 

^1 ^2 2 1 

c) fc. Mary be anxious [^ Mike arrivelr, le 
^1 ^2 ^2^1 

4.18a) [0 John want Tq for Bill to join John's 
^1 ^2 

fraternitylc. lo 

b) [-^ Jerry expect fo for Jerry to win the 

^1 ^2 

P^ize]3 2s 
^2 ^1 

c) fo Mary be anxious [0 for Mike to arrive Ic- \ 

^1 ^2 ^2^1 

4.19a) John wants Bill to join his fraternity. 

b) Jerry expects to v/in the prize. 

c) Mary is anxious for Mike to arrive. 

Kiparskj/' and Kiparsky (1972) offer an alternative to 
Rosenbaum's analysis. They propose that infinitival comple- 
ments result from the failure of the verb to agree with the 
subject because the subject is no longer present as such. 
Stockwell et al. ( 1973: 546ff . ) list three ways in v/hich the 



•mflMP^ilT-*** 



135 

subject is made no longer available for verb-agreement in 
embedded sentences: when it takes the preposition for with 
an emotive predicate in the higher sentence;-^ when 
EQUI-NP -DELETION has applied; and when RAISING-T0-SU3JSCT or 
RAISIMG-TO-OBJEGT has applied. If the subject is not removed 
by one of these means, a that-complement results. Pizzini 
(1972) reduces this list by having the for associated with 
emotive predicates adjoined to the embedded sentence, and 
the subject of the embedded sentence then raised to become 
the object of for. By this analysis, for remains a proper 
constituent of the higher sentence. 

Starting with the underlying structures in ^.20, under 
this analysis, the application of RAISING-TO-OBJECT to 4.20a, 
EQUI-NP -DELETION to 4.20b and the adjunctiontion of for to 
the embedded sentence in 4.20c, v/ith subsequent raising of 
the embedded subject to become object of for , gives the 
intei\Tiediate structures in 4.21. In each case the embedded 
sentence has lost its subject, and the predicate cannot 
agree v;ith a subject it does not have. This causes the for- 
mation of an infinitive, and results eventually in the sur- 
face sentences in 4,19. 

4.20a) r^ v;ant John fo join Bill John's fraternity 1^ 1^ 

b) f- expect Jerry [ v/in Jerry the prizel-, l^ 
~^1 ^2 ^2 ^1 

c) fr. anxious for Mary f^ arrive Mikel^ "1^ 
^1 "^2 ^2 "^1 

4.21a) r„ John want Bill [„ join John's fraternity]]^ Jq 
^1 2 "^2 1 

b) []o Jerry expect [c- win the prize]g ^j^ 

-L ^ ^ -i- 

c) r^ Mary be anxious for Mike fc. arrive"]^ T, 

'^l ^2 ^2^1 



136 

It would appear at this point that to is inserted into 
the embedded sentence in each case, in violation of Chomsky's 
claim that such insertion by a transformation is unnatural. 
This would be so if TO-INSERTION were a cyclical rule. 
Chom.sky {l965il^6) specifically states "that no morphologi- 
cal material can be introduced into a configuration domi- 
nated by S once the cycle of transformational rules has 
already com,pleted its application to this configuration. " 
I will argue, however, first, that TO -INSERTION is a 
post-cyclic rule, and second, that post-cyclic rules are not 
necessarily subject to the restriction stated by Chom.sky. 

TO-INSSRTION (or INFINITIVE FORMATION) applies if 
verb-agreement is not possible. The easiest way to handle 
this fact in the grammar is to order TO-INSERTION after the 
rule (or rules) responsible for verb-agreement, with TO-IN- 
SERTION blocked by the application of the rule . VERB -AGREE- 
MENT. Ordering TO-INSERTION before VERB -AGREEMENT would 
require that TO-INSERTION be sensitive to the same environ- 
mental facts as VERB-AGREETi/IENT. In either case, both rules 
must be late enough to allow for all possible changes in the 
subject. VERB -AGREEMENT cannot be cyclical, as there has 
been no ap'olication of VERB -AGREEMENT in an embedded sen- 
tence prior to the removal of the subject by EQUI-NP -DELE- 
TION or one of the RAISING rules, and we have already seen 
that these rules apply on the cycle of the next higher sen- 
tence, after the cycle is completed on the embedded lower 
sentence. VERB-AGREElViENT cannot apply ia the cycle on the 



I I fcl lBM I Wf'"-i » * l " " ' 



137 
next higher sentence, for it then could not apply to the 
highest sentence. The remaining alternative is for 
Vi^RB-AGR^KMiiisT and TO-INSERTION to be post-cyclic. 

Assuming that VERB-AGREilviEP^T and TO-INSi;;RTION are 
post-cyclic, I will turn to the question of whether post-cyc- 
lic rules are subject to the restriction against downward 
insertion of morphological material. I have argued above 
that the principle of the cycle requires that cyclical rules 
affect proper constituents. Although embedded constituents 
may also be affected, no cyclical rule may affect only embed- 
ded constituents. Post-cyclic rules, however, are not tied 
to a particular sentence within the overall structure, but 
apply to the v/hole structure. In these circumstances, it is 
logical that post-cyclic rules not distinguish between pro- 
per and embedded constituents. TO-INSSRTION v/ould therefore 
be a rule vmich inserts to before any predicate in a string 
which has not undergone VERB-AGRiiiiiMENT. 

In the subsection on the Cycle and Complementation just 
above I stated that the assumption that nom.inalization occurs- 
OP, the cj/cle of the embedded sentence allows a simple 
rule-ordering explanation for the restrictions on producti- 
vity of derived nominal complements. The analysis of infi- 
nitival complements I have given above leads to another 
indirect argument for that conclusion. 

As was mentioned above, an infinitival complement 
results when the subject of an embedded sentence is removed 
transformationally. The subject noun phrases of gerundive 



Hgrv»*iayt«M^'»ij-wf%i:---mrf-*^iiflHr,''r.^wwM^^f r " "J *" '^^ ' a' -=' *E - ''' -"^ -.-rfi— .-••- -i--. ■- •■----■wnvw, -r - 



138 
nominal complements are sometimes deleted by EQUI-NP -DELE- 
TION v/ithout creating infinitival com.plements. Deletion on 
Agent-subject identity has occurred in ^.22, and on Dat- 
ive-subject identity in ^.23- 

4.22a) John anticipated winning the race. 

b) Bill delighted in telling tall stories. 

c) Mary enjoyed reading Russian novels. 

4.23a) Mark imitated Jane putting on a girdle. 

b) Alice watched Jerry running the race. 

c) Mike worried about Mary walking through tovm. 

If the gerundive nominal complements are formed before 
EQUI-NP -DELETION deletes their subjects, there is no possibi- 
lity of the deletion leading to the creation of an infiniti- 
val complement. In any case, while infinitival complements 
are always the result of such deletions, gerundive nominal 
complements are not, as many retain their subjects- If ger- 
undive nominal complements are formed by the application of 
GERUNDIVE NOMINj^JjIZATION on the cycle of the embedded sen- 
tence (the cycle before the application of EQUI-NP-DELETION) , 
the desired results are obtained. 
N ominalization 

I have presented arguments that the rule of COMPLEIVIENT- 
IZER PLACEIvIENT not only violates the principle of the cycle, 
but is not necessary to account for that-coraplements and 
infinitival complements. All of the rules needed to derive 
that" complements and Infinitival complements either apply on 
the cycle above the complement, or are post-cyclic rules. 

On the other hand, I have argued that the rules of 
DERIVED NOMINALIZATION and GERUNDIVE NOMINALIZATION apply on 



— t j : J«Ti ' < i i'i > ii .^ i 4mM i > ' ^^■T— i ^ r ^ 'r' »• 



139 
the cycle of the nominal complement, so that COMPLMSNTIZER 
FLACiiMENT is not needed to account for them either. One 
major objection possible to this viev/ of rules of nominaliza- 
tion is that the transformational derivation of nominal com- 
plements from underlying embedded sentences must account for 
the restrictions on the types of complements predicates in 
higher sentences may take. If the rules of nominalization 
a-pply on the cycle of the nominal complem.ents, they must 
look up into the next higher sentence to see if the predi- 
cate of that sentence takes nominal complements. This 
implies a major change in the concept of the cycle. It 
would seem to me, hov/ever, that allowing rules of nominaliza- 
tion to include a higher predicate in their structural des- 
criptions is preferable to the insertion of morphological 
material into a lower sentence. In addition, having rules 
of nominalization apply on the cycle of the norainal comple- 
ment allows a simple explanation of the fact that many rules 
do not apply in the derivation of derived nominal comple- 
ments, an explanation not possible with COMPLEMENTIZER PLACE- 
MENT. Even if the Lexical Hypothesis is adopted, however, 
the above arguments would still apply to gerundive nominal 
complements. 

Com-plementation as a Process 
There are tv/o basically different ways of handling the 
derivation of complements. One way is to write a single com- 
plex rule which accounts for all the details of structure 
characteristic of a particular type of complement. The rules 



140 
in Lees (I963) are excellent examples of xhis approach. The 
second way to handle the derivation of cornpienients is to 
vvrite several fairly simple rules each accounting for only 
part of the structure characteristic of a particular type of 
coffipletTiSnt. Any independent motivation of the rules helps 
to strengthen such an analysis. This approach may be used 
to profit elsewhere, as with Chomsky's (1970) analysis of 
passivization as the two rules of AGilKT-POSTPOSING and 
NP-PREFOGING. 

I have already presented an analysis of the derivation 
of infinitival complements a.s being due to the deletion of 
the subject of an embedded sentence by either a RAISING rule 
or SQUI-NP-DEL^-iTIONs follov/ed by the post-cyclic application 
of TO ""INSERTION- Derived nominal complements are formed by 
the application of DERIVED NOMINALIZATION , followed by the 
rules accounting for the absence of auxiliaries, presence of 
a preposition (i.e. cif) before direct objects, the prenomi- 
nal position of adjectives corresponding to adverbs, the for- 
mation of a possessive from the subject, or the insertion of 
another determiner if there is no subject, and the morpholo- 
gical modification of the fonmer predicate. Gerundive nomi- 
nal complements are formed by the application of GERUNDIVE 
NCViIN-AXIZATION followed by the last two rules listed above 
which apply to derived nominal complements. Thus, the rule 
producing possessive noun phrases applies in the derivation 
of bot>i derived nominal complements and gerundive nom.inal 
complements, v;hile the rule suffixing -ing to a former 



II ^ '.Mf*!**-!*— I- 



-t---*fs^4.--i'.»0 



I4l 
predicate applies to some derived norainals and all gerundive 



nominal, s 



-rf^rtli ■— iln<li^^.-i ^ 11 If * m i. . r i T i | - »*-aPfe-^i— ri' ' ^ •' 



NOTES 



Chomsky (1965569) defines 'subject-of ' as, "for Eng- 
lish... the relation holding between the NP of a sentence of 
the form NP-Aux-VP and the whole sentence," and 'object-of ' 
as "the relation between the NP of a VP of the form V-NP and 

the whole VP , " 

2 

AGENT -PRHPOSING moves the Agent into a position imme- 
diately to the left of the predicate. 

The derivation of ^.6c from ^.?c involves the raising 
o- Bill from subject of S^ to object of watch in S, , the pro- 
ncminalization and reflexivization of Bill object of watch 
under identity with Bill subject of S , a.nd, finally, the 
deletion of Bill subject of S, under identity with Bill 
Agent of the highest sentence. 

Actually, that - complementation does not share this 
characteristic of COMPLEMENTIZER PLAGEfyiENT, since it involves 
the insertion of that as a proper constituent of the higher 
sentence adjoined to the embedded sentence. 

-^ The subjunctive raood also requires the insertion of for . 

Ross (1972g) calls forms like Jane putting on a 
girdle (in 4.22a) accusative -ing complements. However, 
Fraser (I970) correctly pointed out that such forms are not 
complements, but rather a noun phrase ( Jane ) plus a comple- 
m e n t ( put ting on a girdle ) . 

142 



GPiAPTER FIVE 
CONCLUSIONS 

In this study I have shovrn that derived nominal comple- 
ments , vnien properly defined, have a regular, if limited, 
TDroductivity. 'The fact that derived nominal complements 
have an internal structure like that of noun phrases while 
other types of complements have an internal structure more 
like that of sentences is showT. to have a simple explanation. 
Ordering DERIVED NOMIMALIZATION before most cyclical rules 
allovvs a simple explanation of the facts of derived nominal 
complements. 

However . the simple explanation I have presented here 
is not really possible in the framework assumed" "by Chom.sky. 
In particular, I have assumed underlying structures more 
absT^ract than those in Chomsky's theory, including the 
Toredicate-initial analysis of underlying structures before 
the application of cyclic rules. U'hile , as Chomsky said, 
the Question of whether or not derived nominal complements 
can bft described in a transformational framework is an 
emoLrical one , the decision as to how abstract the underly- 
ing analysis is to be is not em.pirical. By choosing a more 
abstract analysis, I have been able to handle derived nomi- 
nal complements in a transformational framework, 

p'+3 



144- 

The various assumptions I have made about the nature of 
underlying structures also leads to other interesting 
results. I have shown that an abstract, predicate-initial 
analysis of the underlying structure of English eliminates 
the need for any rule of extraposition, without adding any 
rule to the grammar. Contrary to Chomsky's claim that a 
transformational analysis of derived nominal complements 
would involve the complication of the transformational com- 
ponent, my analysis results in a simplification of that com- 
ponent. My analysis also does without a base component in 
the sense of Chomsky's theory. As far as they can be com- 
pared , hov;evers the underlying structures that 1 assume are 
no more complicated than the deep structures of Chomsky's 
theory, and I do not need any distinct deep structures for 
derived nominal complements, as Chomsky does. 

One interesting consequence of the analysis of trans- 
formations that I have proposed here is that no rule which 
moves a noun phrase moves it to the right. All transforma- 
tions acting on noun phrases are leftward movement rules. 

This study, of course, can only be viewed as a prelim-i- 
nary one, as there remain many problems in the description 
of derived nominal complements, but I feel that I have shov/n 
how this construction can be handled within transformational 
theory, and while there may be an irreducible remainder of 
exceptions, it is better to capture generalizations than it 
is to catalog irregularities, as the Lexical Hypothesis dees. 



..'^^^ .- fc*-.tr»r»*-" ■ — 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Albury, Donald H, 1971. In defense of the transformational 
origin of derived nominals. Paper presented to the 
Sixth Meeting of the Southeastern Conference on Lin- 
guistics, Novern.ber 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Forthcoming. English as a VOIS language. 



Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. On complementizers: toward a syn- 
tactic theory of complementizer types. Foundations of 
Lang^uage 6.297-321. 

Chomsky, Noam. I965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. 
Cambridge, Mass.s The MIT Press. 

. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in Eng- 

""lish transformational gram.mar, ed, by Roderick A. 
Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 18^1—221. Waltham, 
Mass, s Ginn. 

Smonds, Joseph. I969. Root and structure-pres^erving trans- 
formations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Dissertation, 

Fillmore, Charles J. 1963. The case for case. Universals 
in ling'aistic theory, ed, by Smmon Bach and Robert T. 
Harms. 1-88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 

Frasar, Bruce, 1970. Some remarks on the action nominali- 
aation in English. Readings in English transform.a- 
ticnal grammar, ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. 
Rosenbaum, 83-98. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 

rCatz, Jerrold J., and Paul M. Postal. 196'l. An integrated 
theory of lingu.istic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.s 

The MIT Press, 

Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky._ 1971. Fact. Semantics, 
ed. by Danny D. Steinberg and ijeon A, Jakobovits. Gam- 
bridges Cambridge University Press. 

I,-akoif. George. I968. Deep and surface grammar. Blooming- 
ton, Ind.s Indiana University Linguistics Club (Mimeo} , 

1^5 



«-,_ -K-_-,V, «—•-,- ^f'-- 



. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. Nev/ York: Holt, 

~~ Rinehart and V/ ins ton. 

Lakoff, Robin. I968. Abstract syntax and Latin complemen- 
tation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 

Lee, Paul Gregory. 1970. Subjects and agents. Colurabus, 
Ohio: OSU Dissertation. 

Lees, Robert B. I963. The grammar of English nominaliza- 
tions. The Hague s Mouton. 

McCawley, James D. 1970. English as a VSO language. 
Language ^^6. 286-99. 

Menzel, Peter. I969. Propositions, events, and aotions^in 
the syntax of complementation. Los Angeles i uCi^A D3.s- 
sertation, 

Milsark, Gary. 1972. Res doubl-ing. Ling-uistic 
Inquiry 3.542-4-9. 

Nev/meyer, Frederick J. 1971. The source of derived nomi- 
nal s-« in English. Language 47.786-96. 

Pizzini, Quentin A. 1972. A transformational__analysis of 
infinitival and gerundive complements in H.nglish. La 
Jolla, Cal. : UC San Diego Dissertation. 

Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York-. 
Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 

Rosenbaum, Peter S. 19d7. The grammar of English predi- 
cate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.s The 
MIT Press, 

Ross, John Robert. 196 7. Constraints on variables in syn- 
tax. Cambridge, Mass.s MIT Dissertation. 

_. 1972a. Act. Semantics of natural language, ed. by 
~ Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman^ 70-126. Dordrecht s 
D. Reidel. 

. 1972b. Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 3.6I-86. 

■, 1972c. Nouniness. Forum Lecture presented to the 

'LSA Linguistic Institute, June 15* Chapel Hill, N.G, 

Smith, Carlotta, 1972. On causative verbs and ^derived nom- 
inals in English. Linguistic Inquiry 3.13^-38. 



MlM>^'i^^V«H'l''> '♦■llff-*-^ C**— ^~ 



147 

Stockwell, Robert P., Paul Schacter and Barbara Kail Partee. 
1973- The major syntactic structures of English. Nevv 
York: Holt, Rinehart and V/inston. 

Vendler, Zeno. I968. Adjectives and norninalizations. The 
Ha^ues Mouton. 



« J <"'.it— n',.>-l'-»=— f-,-*-?'!— — ~v»r' — "■»- '>■' 



■BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Donald Herbert Albury was born July 22, 19^'3 . s.t Miaiaj. , 
Florida. In June, 19^1 , he was graduated from North i>;iani 
Senior High School. In Decerabsr, 1964, he received the 
degree of Bachelor of Arts with a m.ajor in English from the 
University of Florida. From I965 to I967 he wcrked for the 
Trailv/ays Bus System and the University of Florida, From 
1967 until 1969 he served in the Adjutant General Corps of 
the United States Array, including service in Vietnam. Fol- 
Icving his discharge from the Army in 1969! he enrolled in 
the Graduate School of the University of Florida, where he 
received the degree of Master of Arts with a major in Speech 
in December, 1970, and has pursued his v/ork toward the degree 
of Doctor of Philosophy. 

Donald Herbert Albury is married to Virginia Elenor 
Montss. They have one daughter, Rebecca Lynne. He is a 
member of the Southeastern Conference on LingLiistics, the 
Linguistic Society of Am.erica, the Modern Language Associ- 
ation, Eind the American Dia.lect Society. 



l^c 



|- Mill ■ I ,..-1,^-.— . ■^-■g~ff~j^—j-~.^.—^igjf^r:,^^ I 1||l l-l| (-VJ^.^ 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



'I 



.^ 



J^eun Casagrande j' Chairman 
'Associate Professor of Romance 
-^ Languages and Linguistics 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Ed\vard Charles Hutchinson 
Associate Professor of Speech 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Peter ivfenzel 

Assistant Professor of English 

Florida State University 



i*iafflil'- i^T t y~ ?lllr* irr—i t«»-^.yrs-^ 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 







BohSan Saciuk 

Assistant Professor of Spanish 
and Portuguese and Lin- 
guistics 



I certify that I have read this study and that in ray 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



L y ^o4\..^rZ(^. 



Robert J^.es Scholes 
Associate Professor of Speech 
and Linguistics 



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty 
of the Program in Linguistics in the College of Arts and 
Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as 
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy. 

March, 197^ •. 



Dean, Graduate School 



lifcj- . TM M l ll -W ** 



JM2 4 2 3. 9e./lt 



c 



'"1. 



(ri 



b K y